The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal did not report false facts, and the defendant is not found to have intention according to the circumstantial facts at the time of reporting by the defendant.

However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the lower court found guilty of the facts charged of this case, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The Defendant asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal of this case at the lower court, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion in detail, on the grounds that the Defendant stated in detail the Defendant’s assertion and judgment.

In light of the following circumstances as revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the lower court’s determination and determination of the above facts are justifiable, and it did not err by misapprehending the facts as alleged in the grounds of appeal, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

① At the time of the filing of the instant report, the Defendant thought that, as in the pictures attached to the reasoning of the appeal, the mermos attached to the digital book of the instant house were not damaged by the date of the instant report, and thus, the tenants were not residing in the instant house. However, on the date of the instant report, the Defendant considered it necessary to check whether the tenants of the instant house were in critical situations, and to check whether the tenants of the instant house were in critical conditions.

The argument is asserted.

However, the defendant thought that the tenant on the date of the report of this case was not in the housing of this case, and destroyed the Dorings by his preparation, and thereby intending to enter the housing of this case. The tenant appears to be in the housing of this case and the defendant directly destroyed the digital Dorings, he would also gather 12.