The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (definitely erroneous) of the instant truck did not cover the roof of the truck.

In addition, the Defendant continued to have continued to engage in a single part of the roof of the instant truck, and even if the roof of the instant truck was laid off, it is not due to the Defendant’s act.

In addition, in light of the above defendant's act, the defendant did not have intention to damage the truck of this case.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, which erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(1) The defendant asserted that his act constitutes self-defense against the illegal act of Songpa-gu Office officials without warning or warning through his written opinion dated December 8, 2015 and on the 10th of the same month. However, this cannot be viewed as a legitimate ground for appeal since it was newly raised after the appeal period was not timely, and even if it is examined ex officio, it is necessary to promptly take measures to ensure road traffic and safety based on Article 74 (1) 2 of the Road Act. Thus, the removal of things on the road without going through guidance in accordance with the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act constitutes legitimate execution of official duties. Thus, the defendant's assertion that the acts of the control group are unlawful is without merit). 2. On February 1, 2015, the judgment of the court below as to the grounds for appeal, D, F's statement, 15 copies of photographs at the time of the appeal (No. 11), and 2 copies of photographic evidence (No. 13), etc. of the roof of this case.