All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

1. Reasons for appeal;

A. The Defendant, as stated in the facts charged, did not destroy property owned by the victim C, or did not comply with the request for eviction.

B. Sentencing of the lower court’s punishment (the first instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for one year, three years of probation, observation of protection, 40 hours of alcohol treatment, and 6 months of imprisonment with prison labor) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below against the defendant who made an ex officio determination was sentenced to each of the above judgments, and the defendant filed an appeal against them, and this court decided to hold a joint hearing of the above two appeal cases. Since each of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and a single sentence should be imposed in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, the judgment of the court below

However, the court below's reasoning that the defendant's mistake was still subject to the judgment of this court despite the above reasons for reversal of authority.

B. The Defendant made the same assertion as the grounds for appeal on the assertion of mistake of facts in the lower court.

The court below rejected the defendant's above assertion and found guilty on the grounds that the victim C's statement in the court of the court below is acknowledged credibility, in light of the following: (a) the victim C has consistently and specifically stated the facts constituting the crime in this part from the investigative agency to this court; and (b) the victim C's statement in the court of the court of the court below consistent with the photograph description and investigation report (the process of receipt of the report).

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in a thorough comparison, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and otherwise, there is a violation of law of misunderstanding of facts as alleged by the defendant in the judgment below.

subsection (b) of this section.

The defendant's assertion of facts is justified.