The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the Defendant did not have damaged the front of the damaged vehicle, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case. The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of a fine of KRW 700,000 imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. The lower court found that the Defendant destroyed KRW 2,128,412 of the repairing cost by putting the front driver of the damaged vehicle in front of the damaged vehicle, comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly examined and adopted by the lower court.

Examining the above judgment of the court below closely with the evidence, the judgment is just and acceptable. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. It is acknowledged that the Defendant’s illegal parked vehicle in India appears to have committed the instant crime by treating the victimized vehicle as a principal offender who obstructs pedestrian traffic and as the victim during the dispute, and the Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime on a contingent basis, and that it is a relatively old elderly elderly person and is a recipient of basic livelihood security.

However, in full view of the fact that the defendant is seriously against the judgment of the court, the degree of damage is not weak, that the defendant did not agree with the victim, that there is no evidence to recognize that the defendant has made efforts to recover damage on the record, that there is a history of criminal punishment several times, and that there are other various circumstances, such as the defendant's age, environment, occupation, family relationship, circumstances leading to the crime of this case, and circumstances before and after the crime, etc., the court below's punishment is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is justified.