The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The fact that the Defendant, as a laundry in the operation of the victim, injected the contaminated materials contained in the disease of the young child due to the laundry, was contaminated by the laundry in the above laundry as alleged by the victim.

subsection (1) of this section.

Even if the degree of damage does not reach the damage as referred to in the property damage crime, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts charged in this case and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (200,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the crime of damaging property under Article 366 of the Criminal Act is established when it damages, conceals, or otherwise damages the utility of another person's property. It not only changes property into the original purpose of use, but also makes it unusable temporarily (see Supreme Court Decision 92Do1345, Jul. 28, 1992, etc.). In light of the above legal principles, the instant case health unit in light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below, namely, ① the Defendant found the victim at the laundry site in around 20:43, Oct. 15, 2015, which was after the victim left the laundry site in question, and the victim was found to have laundry at around 3:00 on the following day only after the victim was laundry at the laundry and laundry at the laundry site in question, and the Defendant was laundry at the laundry up to 20:3:0 on the aforementioned laund.

However, objective evidence on the facts of the pollution.