The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not have a misunderstanding of the facts charged that the Defendant had a police vehicle take care of the police vehicle stated in the facts charged of the instant case.

B. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state of mental or physical disorder with no or weak ability to discern things, to the extent that he was unable to memory with alcohol.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined in the lower court’s judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant had a department by force at the time and time of the patrol box of the Seoul Yongsan Police Station Emba, Seoul, where the Defendant was stopped due to the 112 reporting processing at the time and place indicated in the instant facts charged. At the time, the Defendant’s face of the instant crime was video recorded by cell phone images, the Defendant was at the time of the police investigation, and the Defendant was at the time of the instant crime, and was given a photograph by capturing the scene of the instant crime.

The fact that “the Defendant,” written in writing, and the fact that the Defendant paid the repair cost of the above ship bomer.

According to the above facts of recognition, the facts charged in this case can be fully convicted based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor. Thus, the judgment below did not err by mistake.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of factual mistake is rejected.

B. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion on mental and physical disorder, the Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime under the influence of drinking, but in light of the background of the instant crime, the circumstances before and after the instant crime, and the Defendant’s behavior at the time of the instant crime, etc., it is not deemed that the Defendant did not have or lacks the ability to discern things at the time of the instant crime.

Therefore, the defendant's mental disorder cannot be accepted.

3. If so, the defendant-appellant.