The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the Defendant did not damage the tobacco advertising board within the convenience store, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (2.5 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The crime of damaging property under Article 366 of the Criminal Act is established when the property of another person is damaged or concealed, or where the utility of the property is harmed by other means. Here, the term "conscising the utility of the property" refers to making the property in a state where it is virtually impossible to provide it for its original purpose of use due to appraisal, and includes making the property in a state where it cannot be used temporarily (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do2590, Jun. 28, 2007, etc.). (b) The court below duly adopted and examined the evidence as a whole and recognized facts as follows, namely, the defendant used a tobacco advertisement board and placed on the floor, and the above tobacco advertisement board can be kept only on the floor where it should be received and installed, and the defendant cannot use it as a new fact (see, e.g., court records 34 and 49 pages), and since then, it cannot be recognized as a new part of a trial record (see, e., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do47).

In light of the above facts in light of the above legal principles, the defendant can fully recognize the facts that the above tobacco advertising board was damaged, or that at least a temporary use of the tobacco advertising board was made.

Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts as alleged by the Defendant and adversely affecting the judgment.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the defendant's assertion.

3. The Defendant’s judgment on the wrongful argument of sentencing is the cause of convenience points after the instant case.