The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant of mistake of facts did not damage the victim’s property or inflict an injury on the victim, and did not intrude the victim’s residence.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts charged and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 2,00,000) is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) As to the argument of mistake of facts as to paragraph (1) of the facts charged (the part concerning destruction of property) can be identified by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below. In other words, the defendant made a statement to the investigative agency and the court below that led to the confession of the crime of destruction of property as stated in paragraph (1) of the facts charged. In full view of the victim's investigative agency and the court of the court below's statement and the estimate of general repair expenses, there is no reason to suspect the credibility of the above confession. Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is without merit since the defendant sufficiently recognizes the facts that damaged the vehicle owned by the victim as stated in the facts charged, and there is no reason to suspect the credibility of the above confession. (2) The defendant's assertion of mistake of facts as to paragraph (2) of the facts charged is without merit. (1) In other words, the defendant made a statement that he was the head of the victim at the time of the case at the court of the court below, which corresponds to this part of the facts charged.