The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant has vagabonds with the victim at the time of the instant case with the value of food.

In addition, there was no intention of causing damage to property because it was lost the spirit of urology, and there was no interference with the victim's restaurant business by putting the victim's bath or duplicating on the floor, and it was not anticipated that the main visit is broken at the time of closing the main visit.

2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the defendant can sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendant interfered with the restaurant business as stated in the facts charged in this case and intentionally damaged the victim's main visit glass.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

Since the investigation process of D, the victim restaurant, to the original trial, the defendant has consistently settled the drinking value and food value of 100,000 won, followed by the kitchen, and expressed that the defendant was able to take a bath more than expectedly, and that the kitchen glass was broken, the taxi fee was refunded, and the taxi fee was accumulated in a daily food restaurant.

나. 당시 피고인이 술을 마신 상태였던 점, 이 사건 범행으로 현행범 체포될 당시에도 “씨발 뭐야”라고 경찰관에게 욕설을 하고 식당 안에 드러누워 “못나간다”며 버텼던 사정, 피고인의 진술에 의할지라도 식당 주인과 음식값을 두고 실랑이를 한 사실, 피고인이 주방문을 닫아 유리가 깨진 사실은 시인하고 있는 점 등이 피해자의 진술을 뒷받침하며, 피고인이 당뇨로 정신을 잃었다

There is no circumstance to support the defendant's assertion that the defendant was broken at the wind at the time when the defendant shuts down, not intentionally the glass of the main visit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit.