The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case without damaging the cargo vehicle managed by the victim or destroying the fruit tag attached in front of the above cargo vehicle as stated in the facts charged, is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (three million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is a person who operates a Chinese house in the name of “C” located at the window B of Changwon-si, Changwon-si.

The defendant was aware of the fact that D, who had worked as an employee at his former shop, was living with the victim E, and was able to give a good appraisal to the victim.

From 18:00 on June 14, 2018 to 09:00 on the 16th of the same month, the Defendant discovered that the F-wing and freight cars, which the Defendant was driven by ordinary party, are parked in the street, and damaged the front part of the freight car (this set) by means of an insurging 215,400 won, by reducing the damage of the parts of the freight car, and destroying it to the extent that the repair cost of the freight 215,400 won would be reduced.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged by compiling the evidence as indicated in its judgment.

C. The burden of proving the facts charged in the criminal trial of the trial for the trial of the trial court is the prosecutor, and the conviction of the defendant is based on the evidence with probative value sufficient for the judge to have a reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true, so if there is no such evidence, the suspicion of guilt is between the defendant, even if there is no such evidence.

Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do7261, Nov. 10, 201). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the instant case is health room.