The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although there was a misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles that the Defendant damaged the glass window of the damaged cargo vehicle due to bricks, there was no further fact that drick back two sides of the cargo vehicle, and the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged even though there was no evidence of reinforcement in addition to the confession of the Defendant. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or violating Article 310 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, evidence of confession is sufficient if it is sufficient to recognize that the confession of the defendant is true, not a processed one, even though all or essential part of the facts constituting the crime is not acceptable, and if the facts constituting the crime can be acknowledged as a whole as a whole, it is sufficient to establish evidence of guilt (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do2343, May 29, 2008). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below is sufficient. ① The defendant was dissurddd with alcohol at the time of the crime of this case and was in possession of backer, and ② the victim was parked at the scene of this case by driving a damaged vehicle at around 10:15 on the day of this case, but confirmed that the vehicle was destroyed by a police officer, and it was destroyed by glass, rupture, and destruction of the entire facts charged, and the defendant again appeared at the court below for the first time after confession.