The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal ① When the defendant spawn at one time by the victim, the victim’s breathly defends the victim so that he/she can breathize him/her, and constitutes self-defense. ② The defendant did not destroy a cell phone of the victim.

Nevertheless, it is illegal that the court below erred by misunderstanding the fact that the court below was guilty.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant also argued the same contents in the lower court, and the lower court rejected it in detail under the title of “determination on the argument of the Defendant and the defense counsel as to the first issue in the market,” and in comparison with the record, the lower court’s judgment is justifiable and did not err by misapprehending the facts.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is not accepted.

B. The following circumstances revealed by evidence duly adopted and examined at the court below on the damage of property, namely, ① the victim consistently stated from the police to the court below that the defendant was laid on the ground floor by cutting the mobile phone from the police to the court below, ② the defendant alleged that the victim was making a false statement since the victim's voice was located in the lerara seat so that it could not hear the voice of the mobile phone from the part of the court below, ② the defendant argued that the victim was a person who was making a false statement. However, it cannot be determined that the park floor was not sound at the time when the cell phone fall down because the park floor was leratan, and the mobile phone was damaged by the victim's cell phone repair cost to the 263,800 won, and the fact that the victim's cell phone was damaged can be recognized.