The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) As the steel poppy was caused by the loss, Defendant 1 did not have the intention of destruction because the steel poppy was caused by the loss.

In special intimidation, at the time of the instant case, the Defendant did not drive the truck by accelerating the Defendant’s truck, and when the Defendant was unable to drive the truck, it was far away from 1-2 meters from the victims, and was at the bottom of the opposite direction to the victims, and did not pose a threat to the victims.

Nevertheless, the court below found all of the facts charged of this case guilty, which erred by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, two years of protection observation) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor 1) misunderstanding the legal principles and the defendant committed each of the crimes in this case during the period of suspended execution, which constitutes a person who is disqualified for the execution under the proviso of Article 62 of the Criminal Act, and thus, the judgment of the court below which sentenced the suspended execution against the defendant is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

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

A. The lower court rejected the aforementioned assertion in its reasoning on the grounds of appeal on the part of the crime of damaging special property by asserting the same as the grounds of appeal in this case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, namely, whether there exists a lane between the victim D and the point where the Defendant was unable to take the iron poppy and the point where the Defendant was unable to take the steel poppy, and the interval is narrow. However, the lower court intentionally attempted to have the victim poppy poppy on the part of the Defendant’s free will.

(b) appears;