The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, on April 19, 2016, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 500,000 for the crime of destroying property under the Busan District Court Decision 2016 High Court Decision 2977, and around that time, the above summary order became final and conclusive. Since the above crime of destroying property and the charge of destroying property of this case for which the summary order became final and conclusive are related to a simple one under the substantive law, the effect of the above summary order is deemed to affect the charge of destroying property of this case, and thus, the facts charged in this part of the facts charged should be sentenced to acquittal.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (the penalty amount of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On April 19, 2016, the record of the judgment on the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles, namely, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 500,000 (No. 2977) for the crime of property damage at the Busan District Court on April 19, 2016, which became final and conclusive around that time, and the above summary order became final and conclusive. The facts constituting the crime were destroyed by the Defendant, around January 27, 2016, at the G cafeteria restaurant operated by the victim E, “a Chewing baby” in the “G restaurant operated by the victim E, and 250,000 won of the market value.”

The facts charged of the damage of the property of this case are as follows: around 12:30 on January 27, 2016, the Defendant: (a) destroyed by 4 parts of the total market value of the victim E, which is a 100,000 won of the market value owned by the victim E, on the ground that H, the spouse of the victim E, is trying to escape without communicating with himself/herself at the “G” restaurant operated by the victim E.

On January 27, 2016, the defendant sought a "G restaurant" operated by the victim E on two occasions. First, around 12:30 on the same day, the defendant found the above restaurant and damaged four mals, he/she did not talk with the victim E. In case he/she again returned to the above restaurant at around 16:00 on the same day.