The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the facts charged in this case, although the defendant did not destroy the victim's vehicle as stated in the facts charged in the judgment below.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence, i.e., the victim discovered at the court of the court below that there was no flick State when parking the instant vehicle at 10:0 a.m. on the day of the incident, but there was a flick State at the time when leaving the vehicle at 2:30 p.m. on the same day. Since it is confirmed that there was no person other than the defendant and the defendant was an act committed by the defendant, as it was found that there was no person other than the defendant," the victim stated the damage to the effect that the vehicle was flicked at the time of the occurrence of the crime. ② According to the blickbox image image taken by the defendant at the time of the crime, it is confirmed that the vehicle was flick in front of the vehicle and the victim's vehicle were flickly flick in front of the vehicle at the time of the accident, ③ it seems that the vehicle was flick in front of the victim's.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake is justified.