The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant, at the time of the instant case, was guilty of the instant charges on the grounds of G, D, F, and H’s statement, although there was a fact that the Defendant laid the glass cup on the floor at the time of the instant case, but did not destroy television, typ, singing sing machines, etc., but the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that it was erroneous

2. Determination

A. As indicated in the facts charged in the instant case, there is evidence that the Defendant, as a witness of the lower court, F, G, D, and H’s respective statements, case site photographs (Enopics), damage estimate (Enopics), damage estimate (TV, television, etc.), and case site photographs (Enopics), which are located within two sides of Enopics Nos. 2 operated by D on the floor and wall of the floor, and damaged the floor strings, musical instruments, and television.

B. First, with respect to the credibility of each statement made by F, G, D, and H in the original trial court, the investigative agency consistently up to the original trial, and “F, G, D, and H stated that the Defendant was on the floor and wall surface within two occasions Enonocom bank, and thereby, was damaged.” ② There are no special circumstances suggesting that the lower court’s determination that recognized the credibility of the statement made by the witness F, etc. was clearly erroneous in light of the contents of the lower judgment and the evidence duly examined by the lower court, and there are no grounds suggesting that maintaining the above judgment of the lower court is considerably unfair in the trial. ③ The Defendant continued to work in the above Enocom bank that he worked as a water, and the Defendant continued to work as “H” on the day of the instant case, and the Defendant was not on the part of Enocom bank for the purpose of understanding H’s work on the day of this case.