The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 400,000 won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. On August 23, 2018, the lower court: (a) around 00:30 on August 23, 2018, the lower court, among the charges of causing property damage related to the crime of daily crimes, destroyed property by destroying the FEXN car, which is owned by the victim E, by drinking, from among the charges of causing property damage, by using electric wheelchairs chairs on the front roads in Yeonsu-gu Incheon Metropolitan City.

"The reasons for the judgment are not guilty, and the remainder was found guilty, and the prosecutor did not appeal against the acquittal part.

Therefore, the non-guilty portion in the reasoning of the judgment of the court below shall be deemed to have been exempted from the object of public defense among the parties, so this part shall be determined according to the theory of innocence of the court below and only the guilty portion recognized by the judgment of the court below.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which makes a conclusion shall not be judged again. 2. Summary of the Reasons for Appeal

A. As to the point of mistake of mistake (i.e., injury by negligence), the Defendant is sufficiently paying due attention to the fact, and thus, the crime of injury by negligence is not established.

With regard to the property damage, the defendant tried not to go against the victim's car and tried not to examine the victim's car as his hand and did not damage the victim's car.

B. The court below's sentence (the fine of 500,000 won) imposed by the court below is excessively unreasonable.

3. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The Defendant is a person who operates an electric wheelchairs, and has a duty of care to safely operate the electric wheelchairs so that no other person does so due to electric wheel fishing.

However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court, the Defendant appears to have left the elevator at the time of the instant accident without returning to the elevator, and the Defendant appears to have left the elevator at the time of the instant accident.