The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant, by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, opened an entrance correction device, and laundry machine, cremation, cremation, and photographor, etc., but the above articles were actually prepared by the Defendant and the victim C, not the victim C’s goods.

In addition, as the victim E, the defendant, who is the child of the victim C, was a citizen of the breast at his/her hand in the defense level, but there is no fact that he/she assaulted the victim E by his/her hand or electrical contact reduction.

Therefore, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of the instant case erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or mistake.

B. The lower court’s sentencing of an unreasonable sentencing (fine 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, even if the goods damaged by the Defendant and the Victim C, as alleged by the Defendant, are presumed to have been jointly owned by the Defendant and the Victim C, such goods are presumed to be jointly owned by the Defendant and the Victim C (Article 830(2) of the Civil Act mutatis mutandis), and the goods jointly owned by the other party constitutes the property of the other party, which

Next, in light of the health stand, the testimony at the court below's court below's decision on the part of the facts charged of assault, the defendant's act cannot be deemed as self-defense, and the defendant's act cannot be deemed as self-defense.

Therefore, the defendant's argument on this part is without merit.

B. Although the Defendant did not make a confession of the instant crime even though the Defendant did not have made a confession of the instant crime, the circumstance leading to the instant crime is the house in which the victim C was a victim C, while the Defendant actually maintained a marital relationship with the victim C.