The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

However, the period of three years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The facts charged of this case by misapprehending the legal principles are that the Defendant: (a) destroyed another’s automobile owned by another; and (b) the bus of this case destroyed by the Defendant was owned by the Defendant; and (c) such crime

B. At the time of the instant case, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol and had no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions.

(c)

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

2. Determination

A. The instant bus is registered in the name of the victim company in the car registration ledger as to the assertion of misunderstanding of legal principles.

Therefore, the defendant carried the bus of this case into the victim company.

Even if the defendant agreed to hold ownership of the bus of this case between the victim company and the victim company, barring special circumstances, the bus of this case is owned by the victim company and not owned by the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 85Do899, Sept. 10, 1985; 2000Do5767, May 30, 2003). Therefore, there is an error in the misapprehension of legal principles as argued by the defendant in the judgment of the court below.

subsection (b) of this section.

B. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mental disorder, even though the Defendant was aware of drinking alcohol at the time of the instant case, in full view of the background, method and consequence of the instant crime recognized by the aforementioned evidence, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol and had no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions.

It is difficult to recognize it.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

(c)

The defendant's judgment on the illegal argument of sentencing has become a fire to the bus of this case owned by the victim company in depth.

The defendant spreads his bus well, and the result is that the defendant spreads it.