The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and four months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the crime of destruction of property with a misunderstanding of facts, the Defendant did not destroy the victim’s car as stated in the judgment.

B. The punishment of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant ex officio, Articles 157 and 153 of the Criminal Act provide that “If a person who committed an offense without accusation makes a confession or acceptance of a person, prior to the judgment or disciplinary action on the reported case becomes final and conclusive, the punishment shall be mitigated or remitted.” However, the Defendant led to the instant crime, and the Defendant’s case against F with no accusation, is obvious that he/she was subject to a disposition of non-prosecution and that his/her judgment becomes final and conclusive, the punishment against the Defendant shall be mitigated or exempted in accordance with Articles 157 and 153 of the Criminal Act.

In this respect, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

However, there are such reasons for ex officio reversal.

Even if the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding the above facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, it will be examined below.

3. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts

A. In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the lower court can sufficiently recognize that “the Defendant destroyed the victim’s car as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the lower judgment.”

1) The victim consistently from the investigative agency to this court, “at the time, the victim’s car at the time was set up at the entrance of the underground parking lot and obstructed the passage of the victim’s car, thereby getting off the vehicle and avoiding disturbance.

Therefore, as a result, the defendant was going up to the fourth floor of the building of the bowling place where the defendant intends to go up to the Sari site. However, the defendant started to go back from the front to the rear side of the car driving seat.

Accordingly, the defendant is above.