The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. On February 5, 2018, the gist of the grounds for appeal, which the Defendant himself submitted within the submission period of the written reason for appeal, includes an assertion that contests intentional nature in relation to the point of special assault, and includes an assertion that contests arbitrity in relation to the point of attempted destruction of special property, and thus, it shall also be determined as well.

Meanwhile, on April 6, 2018, which was submitted by the Defendant after the closure of pleadings at the trial at the court, includes the assertion that there was no fact that the Defendant caused the victim by hand, etc. with respect to the fact of special assault. This cannot be deemed a legitimate ground for appeal since a new argument was made after the lapse of the period for submitting an appeal, but it can be deemed as an ex officio investigation at the court, and the purport is to dispute the mistake of facts as alleged in the aforementioned intentionally. As such, the judgment is made as to the assertion of mistake in fact (the original written statement submitted by the Defendant on May 10, 2018 includes the fact that the facts charged are recognized, but the purport is unclear, so it is deemed ex officio as to the legitimacy thereof). In fact, in relation to a special assault, the Defendant did not have any fact that the Defendant injured the victim as his hand, etc., and the fact that a beer was suffering from a beer also did not have any intention to mislead the victim.

B. In relation to a criminal attempt to destroy special property by misunderstanding legal principles, the Defendant did not only have witness to commit a crime, but only has committed a crime by correcting his or her wrong thoughts and actions, which constitutes an attempted suspension under the Criminal Act, and the punishment should be reduced or exempted as necessary (the Defendant’s assertion as to the motive to suspend the act of practice as above).

The sentence of the lower court (one year and two months of imprisonment, confiscation) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the court below is legitimate.