A. On August 2013, 2013, around 09:00, the Defendant: (a) instructed workers who were engaged in repair work without the victim’s permission while performing the repair work for the open preparation on the second floor of the building located in the building, the Defendant infringed on the said main points through the inspection tool located in the public toilet of the building.

B. In order to carry out the 2nd floor pipeline construction by intrusion upon the date and place mentioned in the above paragraph (a), the Defendant removed the ceiling of the dran tavern building owned by D, and damaged the dynasium, etc.

Accordingly, the Defendant damaged the property amounting to KRW 4,240,000 in the estimated repair cost.

2. Determination

A. The prosecutor bears the burden of proving the facts constituting an offense charged in a criminal trial, and the conviction should be based on strict evidence with probative value that leads a judge to believe that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt (Article 307(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act). If there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt about the defendant's crime, the interest of the defendant should be determined (see Supreme Court Decisions 91Do1385, Aug. 13, 1991; 2008Do9890, Feb. 12, 2009, etc.). B. The court duly adopted the evidence and duly examined by the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, namely, according to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it can be acknowledged that the above part was destroyed by the Defendant's order, etc., and the entrance and exit of the 1st floor and the entrance and exit of the 1st floor of the 1st floor of the 2nd floor of the 1st floor of the 2nd floor of the 1st floor of the Ga.