The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On March 23, 2014 and August 30, 2014, the Defendant was guilty of the facts charged in the instant case, even though he did not destroy CCTV by the victim, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

The argument is asserted.

B. The Defendant asserts that the sentence imposed by the lower court (the penalty amounting to KRW 3.5 million and the cost of the lawsuit) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The facts charged of the instant case [2015 high-level 2] When the Defendant resided in Jinju-si, where the victim C was residing in Jinju-si, one who was residing in D, one another at the ground boundary, the victim installed CCTV at his own house. On March 23, 2014, the Defendant: (a) reported that the CCTV was installed on the wall of the above victim’s house; and (b) destroyed that two CCTVs were installed on the wall of the above victim’s house outside the house; and (c) destroyed that the Defendant was not able to get off the above CCTV of an amount equivalent to KRW 40,000 in the market price using approximately one meter of tree widths (254, 2015 high-level 254) [254] The Defendant was at the victim’s house in Jin-si-si, around 11:30, 2014, that the victim was installed for the purpose of crime prevention, thereby falling into the market price of each victim’s CCTV of the above 200.

B. The lower court found guilty of the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

(c)

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, all of the circumstances presented by the court below are recognized.

In addition, the Defendant made a statement that G residing adjacent to the Defendant had damaged the CCTV of this case.

However, G argues that “No statement was made to the Defendant that the CCTV was damaged, and that it was not good between the Pyeongtaek Defendant and the victim.”