The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal did not have any fact that the Defendant laid down the instant objects on the floor and destroyed them, but the lower court convicted the Defendant by citing a mistake in fact.

2. 이 사건 공소사실 피고인은 2013. 2. 7. 22:25경 서울 송파구 C에 있는 D학원에서, 현재 이혼소송 중으로 별거 중에 있는 처 피해자 E에게 “명절인데 시댁에 안 내려 가느냐 ”라고 물었으나 대답을 하지 않았다는 이유로, 책상 위에 있던 플라스틱 연필통을 집어서 바닥에 1회 던져 플라스틱 통을 깨지게 하고 그 속에 담겨진 볼펜과 칼을 부러지게 하였다.

As a result, the Defendant destroyed the plastic pen box and the pentle and the pentle contained therein, which are owned by the victim, thereby harming its utility.

3. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the ground that, in full view of the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor and in particular E’s statements, the Defendant could have discovered the fact that he was laid on the floor by putting the studs into the floor and damaged the studs, etc.

4. Judgment of the court below

A. We examine the evidence submitted by the prosecutor to prove the facts charged in the instant case.

Each statement in E’s investigative agency, which directly reflects the facts charged in the instant case that the Defendant was in the floor of the pen room, is not believed in light of the fact that E stated in the original trial that “I think the Defendant was unable to directly see the page of the floor by taking the pen room into the part of the pen room (it is also stated in the second police statement with respect to E) but the sound was significantly passed,” and it is not sufficient to recognize the facts charged in the instant case by itself not being taken at the time of the above oral statement in the original trial and the part of the damaged product released to explain the instant case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the facts charged in the instant case.

B. Therefore, this case.