The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal by the defendant;

A. Error of facts (as to the part of the destruction and damage of property), the Defendant committed an injury to the victim on the ground of obstruction of course with the victim D. However, there was no fact that there was no damage to the gap between Ebenz vehicles (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) as indicated in the facts charged of the destruction and damage of property in this case.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts charged with the destruction of property of this case and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence imposing a fine of KRW 3,00,000 on the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) Determination of the assertion of mistake of facts (1) The Defendant is a person who drives a Cblade vehicle, and the victim D is a driver of Ebenz vehicle.

At around 20:30 on February 24, 2014, the Defendant: (a) obstructed the course of the Defendant’s right-hand in front of the victim’s vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the victim in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the victim in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle (the fact of the prosecution is stated as “click,” but according to the records, the Defendant is deemed to enter the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front

(2) The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the charge of causing the property damage of this case on the ground that ① the Defendant’s partial statement in the lower court, ② the witness D’s legal statement in the lower court, ③ some police interrogation protocol against the Defendant, ④ the police protocol on D, ⑤ the accusation, ⑤ the written estimate, and each investigation report (as to the video, the content of the prosecutor’s direction) are admitted as evidence.

However, this judgment of the court below is for the following reasons.