The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is that there was no fact that the Defendant shouldered the victim D’s front door glass, and the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending of facts.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, i.e., the victim D’s house at the time of the instant case

E and D consistently stated in the investigative agency and the court of original instance that the Defendant had opened a door to see son and son at the time when she requested the Defendant to open a door to see son and son. The content of damage is relatively concrete and detailed, and it is reasonable to explain the situation, and the judgment of the court below on the credibility of testimony made by E and D at the court of original instance was clearly erroneous.

In full view of the special circumstances or the fact that there is no result of an additional examination of evidence conducted in the trial of a party (see Supreme Court Decisions 2008Do7917, Jan. 30, 2009; 2006Do4994, Nov. 24, 2006; 2006Do4994, Nov. 24, 2006; 2006; and 3006Do494, Nov. 24, 2006; and 2006, G was given testimony to the effect that the police officer called for the above house corresponds to D’s statement at the court of original instance

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.