The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles was the intent to damage a car owned by the victim C, and there was no intention to damage a car owned by the victim F and a cruise car owned by the victim H and a cruise car owned by the victim H.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 1.5 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles does not necessarily require planned intent of damage or active desire of damage to property against the owner’s will (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do182, Mar. 12, 2009). Meanwhile, subjective elements of constituent elements of crime include cases where the possibility of occurrence of crime is uncertain, and dolusent intention means cases where it is acceptable in light of the possibility of occurrence of crime as well as cases where there is an awareness of the possibility of occurrence of crime in order to establish dolusent intention, and further, the intention of the court to allow the risk of occurrence of crime is required to consider the possibility of occurrence of crime. Determination of whether an actor permitted the possibility of occurrence of crime should be based on specific circumstances, such as the form of act occurring outside the body, etc., and the situation of act, etc., which were revealed outside the body of the victim, and it should be confirmed from the perspective of the victim’s body on the same day (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da7474, Apr. 24, 2004).