The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

(In fact, the Defendant had removed commercial banner several times while operating a verbal repair shop in the vicinity of the instant place, but there is no fact that the Defendant removed the election banner as shown in the instant facts charged.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Judgment

The judgment of the court below also argued to the same effect as the grounds for appeal, and the court below rejected the defendant's assertion on the grounds that the person who removed an electoral banner as stated in the facts charged in this case can be fully convicted of the defendant since it is reasonable to see that the person who removed the banner as stated in the facts charged in this case was the defendant, taking into account the following circumstances acknowledged

The Defendant operates a verbal room in the vicinity of the instant banner, and the banner is located on the right side of the oral standard.

According to each CCTV image, each CCTV image shows that the defendant saw the object (doluco knife) in the form of laco at oral and left from the port (the 43 pages of the evidence record) and that the gate (the 153 pages of the evidence record) facing the banner is witness.

At the time, the Defendant was locked in white head, and was put in black papers, and the Defendant was consistent with the increase fested at the place where she removed the banner.

The defendant stated that the commercial banner has been removed at will on several occasions on the ground that the banner is oral.

In addition, under the Doluco's knife and knife a banner, the other Doluco knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife.

However, the banner of this case seems to have been removed by similar methods.

K. In the case of the defendant's fraud, K.