The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact that the defendant, when based on the black image, which is the direct evidence proving the facts constituting the crime stated in the judgment of the court below, only the fact that the defendant used on the vehicle as stated in the judgment of the court below (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) is recognized, and it is not known whether the said vehicle has been damaged, and in view of the fact that the time between January 25, 2014 and March 25, 2014, the date of the instant crime, the date of the instant crime, and the place where the said vehicle was parked, and there is a possibility that the said vehicle might be damaged by other vehicles, the judgment of the court below guilty the defendant.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (1.5 million won of a fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The court below found the following facts or circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated and the evidence of the court below, namely, D found that there was a flicker in which the Defendant had been flicked at around 9:40 minutes a.m. on the day of the instant case when parked the instant vehicle at around 9:0 p.m. on the same day, although there was no flicker himself, he did not have a flicker. On the vehicle, the Defendant confirmed the flick box box box of the vehicle parked on the front flick because there was no blick box box in the front flick, and the Defendant stated the fact that the Defendant damaged the front flick door of the instant vehicle until the investigative agency and the court below. According to the black flick video screen that took the scene at the time, the Defendant confirmed the defect in the front flick and the rear flick on the instant vehicle while doing his behavior in his front flick and the rear flick.