The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles caused a somewhat defect in the telephone machine or entrance due to the Defendant’s act, it was not damaged to the extent that it would prejudice its utility, and thus, the Defendant did not damage the victim’s property.

In addition, the Defendant did not commit an indecent act against the victim as stated in the facts charged of the instant case, nor did he attempted to steals the victim’s property, or assault the victim.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below concerning the misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to the damage of property, the defendant's act of causing damage to a part of the phone set on the phone set by the court below, and the defendant's act of causing damage to the phone set by the door set of the store set by the court below and informing the customer's access to the door set off. According to the above facts, the defendant's act may interfere with the utility of the telephone set and entrance, etc., and even if the telephone set and entrance were not completely damaged due to the defendant's act, the crime of causing damage to property is recognized as long as it interferes with the utility of the telephone set and entrance, etc., even if the telephone set and entrance were not completely destroyed by the defendant's act, it includes not only the case of changing the material destruction into a state where it cannot be used for its original purpose, but also the case of causing damage to its utility by making it impossible to play a specific role such as a temporary act, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 82Do16516.