재물손괴
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant, without the consent of the victim, destroyed and damaged the victim's factory building located G in Yangsan-si (hereinafter "the factory of this case") by cutting one sn beam pole (hereinafter "the columns of this case") in Yangsan-si, thereby finding the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case; and (b) the lower court determined that there is no evidence to acknowledge the facts charged of this case and rendered a judgment not guilty of the Defendant. The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination:
A. The lower court determined as follows: (a) there are evidence consistent with the facts charged in the instant case, the victim and his wife’s respective legal and police statements as well as on-site photographs; (b) the victim made a different statement from each other at the police and the lower court’s court’s court on the date of the instant pillar; and (c) the machinery installer and the machinery installer could not install the machinery due to the instant columns, since the Defendant could have installed the machinery to remove the machinery with the permission of the manufacturer of the factory with the permission of the owner of the factory.
After that, the victim stated to the effect that he permitted the removal of the instant pole in the factory of this case, and the victim stated to the effect that he permitted the removal of the instant pole. 3 According to the victim's statement, since I appears to have been at the same site at the time when the defendant and the victim discussed about the removal of the instant pole, unlike the victim's assertion, I's statement that the victim allowed the removal of the instant pole is credibility, and ④ the victim demanded that the defendant thoroughly reinforces by allowing the removal of the instant pole in the F in Yangsan City F (hereinafter referred to as "short pole"), and the victim demanded that the defendant thoroughly reinforces it by allowing the removal of the instant pole, and the victim made a contract between the defendant and the victim to lease the factory of this case or after this mold.