The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of five million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to the misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (not guilty part of the judgment of the court below), the court below found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged, despite the fact that the Defendant intentionally destroyed the victim I’s benz car according to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (a fine of four million won) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Around 03:00 on August 27, 2019, the summary of the facts charged pertaining to the damage and damage of property, the Defendant, who was parked in the vicinity of the victim I, was suffering from the damage requiring repair due to the lack of market price by getting off the part of the main and back part of the JWz car owned by the victim I, which was parked in the vicinity of the C convenience store located in Busan-gu, Busan-gu, for the reason that the Defendant was dissatisfied with D, in front of the C convenience store located in the Busan-gu, Busan-do.

B. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was insufficient to deem that the Defendant had intentional intent to damage the victim I’s car, and that there was no other evidence to acknowledge this differently.

C. In recognition of the criminal intent of the court’s judgment on the damage of property, it does not necessarily have to have the intent of planned damage or actively wish to damage the property, and it is recognized that the owner loses the utility of the property against his/her will (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Do2701, Dec. 7, 1993). In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the Defendant 10-15-year food for the victim I’s automobile.