The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-finding misunderstanding (the point of damage to property) is merely the fact that the Defendant opened the door and left the door, and there is no fact that he collected the flower into the floor by hand as shown in the decision of the court below.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, namely, ① the victim consistently reported to the police by the investigative agency on the following grounds: (a) the Defendant did not desire the Defendant to make himself or herself at the end of business hours; and (b) the Defendant did not make himself or herself feel.

The defendant, who is a police officer, is able to drink her beer and her beer.

In addition, the police returned to the police, and thereafter, the defendant took a bath for the reason that he reported to the police by himself while leaving the police station, and putting the fire on the left side of the entrance into the floor by hand.

In addition, the defendant's report was made to the police again because the defendant's report was made because the defendant's report was made to the police again.

In full view of the fact that “A victim made a statement” and (2) the victim made a concrete statement about the important part of the situation at the time of damage to the chemical part of this case and before and after it; (3) the defendant made a confession of the crime of damage to the property of this case in the court below; and (4) the fact that the victim destroyed the chemical part of this case as stated in the decision of the court below is sufficiently recognized.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. Even when considering the fact that the degree of damage to the crime of damaging property was relatively not much serious to determine the wrongful assertion of sentencing, the crime of this case is deemed to have damaged another’s property and publicly insulting the victim, and the background, method, and method of the crime.