The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles)

A. Although the recorded file CD (Evidence Nos. 10-1) in the assertion on admissibility of evidence was manipulated, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on admissibility of evidence, thereby finding the above recorded file CD as evidence.

B. The Defendant alleged as to the facts charged did not have the intention to damage property, and there is no fact that the Defendant inflicted an injury on the victim, since he/she did not have the intention to damage property.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty on the basis of the statement of the victim with no credibility and the photograph (the list No. 7) submitted by the victim. The court below erred in the misapprehension of facts.

2. Determination

A. The electronic media, such as a file recording the contents of the judgment on admissibility of evidence, does not have the signature or seal of the originator or statementer due to its nature, and in cases where the contents are either the original recorded in the conversation or a copy copied from the original without any artificial adaptation, such as editing in the duplication process, in consideration of the risks of editing and operating the contents by either the author or statementer’s intent or a specific technology, it shall be proven that the content of the conversation is a duplicate copy of the original without any artificial adaptation, such as editing in the duplication process, and in the absence of such proof, the admissibility

Furthermore, the fact that a recording file submitted as evidence is an original recording of a conversation or a copy of the original without any artificial adaptation, such as editing in the course of duplication, may be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances, such as testimony or statement by a person involved in the process of creating, transmitting, and storing the recording file, comparison with the value of the original or copy file immediately after the creation of the original or copy file, and the result of verification and appraisal of the recording file (Supreme Court Decision 2014Do10978 Decided January 22, 2015). The Defendant also holds the same position in the lower court.