The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although there is a fact that the defendant of mistake of facts has committed some acts in the process of disputing with the victim, it was not damaged as recorded in the facts charged.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby finding the defendant guilty as to the damage and damage to property.

B. The lower court’s sentence on the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. In the instant case for ex officio determination, there are grounds for a request for retrial under Article 23-2(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do8243, Nov. 26, 2015). The lower judgment was no longer maintained.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.

3. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The Defendant presented the part of the damage of the wind gale as a photo of the wind gale indicated in the facts charged at the trial, and the victim B also stated to the effect that the wind gale was not broken or not broken at the time of the trial at the trial court.

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly examined by the court below and the court below, and ① Police Officer E called to the site at the time of the occurrence of the instant case at the time of the investigation process: “A police officer E called to the site after receiving a report of 112 and arriving in the site; on the house, there was a stormer in the house, and the household and the house of the house were strawers.

“The Court stated to the effect that “the wall bridged on the floor,” and in the trial court, the wall blicked away from the floor;

The name of the crime was treated as the damage by specifying that the life-concentrating devices are too far away from the floor, and the volume was large.

“A statement to the effect that the victim B made the first 112,” and the content reported by the victim B in the first 112, “the Defendant was the property in which the Defendant was suffering from the disturbance of his happiness.”