The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s misapprehension of the facts and legal doctrine is sufficient to see the Defendant’s pentle, but it is also removed because there is a danger to traffic.

B. The lower court’s sentence against an unfair defendant in sentencing (an amount of KRW 300,00) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant asserts that the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine would go beyond it because, from the investigative agency to the trial of the party, the Defendant had a risk of causing an accident due to the fences installed by the victim.

According to the evidence duly admitted by the court below, it is recognized that the defendant intentionally booms the pents owned by the victim.

Unlike the defendant's assertion, it cannot be viewed as a legitimate act or an act without illegality solely on the ground that the gate was damaged for the purpose of preventing danger.

Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

B. Under the Korean Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the principle of direct determination on the unfair argument of sentencing, there exists an area unique to the first instance court regarding the determination of sentencing, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and where the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The Defendant did not agree with the victim, and there is no change in the special conditions of sentencing that could change the sentence of the lower court in the first instance court.

In full view of various circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, family relationship, health status, criminal history and contents thereof, attitude in an investigation agency and court, nature of a crime, motive, means and consequence of a crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment against the Defendant is too unfair because it goes beyond the reasonable scope of its discretion.