beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
Summary of Grounds for Appeal
A. misunderstanding of facts ① The Defendant is a pen which is very rare and easy to erase “red red writing” and the victim’s bill of indictment is written as a “main set” but is corrected as a standard book, which is a standard book.
In light of the fact that writing was written above, the victim's automobile was about 15 years old, and the victim's automobile was considered to have a considerable living defect in the body of the vehicle. Thus, even if there was a defect on the Bown unit after the instant case, it is difficult to view it as a result of the Defendant's act even if there was a defect in the body of the vehicle, and the police officer dispatched after receiving a report at the time did not confirm the defect in the vehicle of the victim, it cannot be deemed that even if the defendant written written the writing on the victim's vehicle, it cannot be deemed that the defendant caused the damage to the victim's utility, and it cannot be deemed
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of KRW 300,000) is too unreasonable.
2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts
A. The judgment of the court below also asserted the same purport as the argument in the above grounds for appeal, and the court below rejected the defendant's assertion on the ground that the defendant, considering the consistent statement of the witness C and the result of the examination of the court of the original instance, etc., the court below rejected the defendant's assertion on the ground that it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant destroyed a car of the victim and damaged it, and convicted the defendant of the facts charged in this case.
B. 1) In recognition of the criminal intent of destroying and damaging property in the relevant legal doctrine, it does not necessarily mean that there is a planned intention of damage or actively wish to damage the property, but there is a perception that it would lose the utility of the property against the owner’s will (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Do2701, Dec. 7, 1993).