The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged even though the defendant did not have damaged the victim's vehicle by launching the victim's vehicle in the event of a mistake of facts, and there is an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In the case of self-defense or an injury to a political party, the act committed by the victim to restrain the defendant by exercising violence, such as dumping the defendant first, which constitutes a legitimate act, and thus does not constitute a legitimate act, as it constitutes legitimate act, since it constitutes legitimate defense or passive resistance to defend the legal interests of the defendant by setting up against an unlawful act of infringement by the victim.

C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. On April 2, 2012, the Defendant of this part of the facts charged, around 00:02, damaged another’s property by generating the back door of the driver’s seat of Ftoscar car owned by the victim while G and Si roads in front of the D Child Care Center located in Seosan-si, Seosan, to ensure that the repair cost of the damaged vehicle is equivalent to KRW 268,367.

B. The lower court determined that there was a proof of this part of the facts charged, based on the evidence, such as the victim’s statement and photograph, and found that there was a conviction on this part of the facts charged, inasmuch as the location of the vehicle as identified in the vehicle’s photograph (No. 53 pages) and the Defendant’s self-price as explained by the victim could be responding to

C. The burden of proving the facts charged in the instant court’s judgment ought to be based on the evidence of probative value that makes a judge not having any reasonable doubt to the extent that the facts charged are true. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, the Defendant is guilty.