재물손괴등
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, including the summary of the grounds for appeal, the Defendant’s act of destroying the Defendant’s pents was committed twice, and the Defendant was found to have damaged the pents in early June 2017. The instant land was land attached to the land adjacent to it and its boundary was partitioned by pents, and thus constitutes the above summary of the building, and thus, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case on a different premise. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. The lower court rendered a not guilty verdict on the facts charged of the instant case on the grounds stated in its reasoning, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, on the grounds that the complainant’s statement on the time of pents damage is a policeman on May 14, 2017 or a policeman on early June 2017, and thus, it is not consistent in itself. The complainant’s own statement appears to be unaware of the time of pents damage. On June 13, 2017, the Defendant’s photograph (see No. 41, e.g., evidence submitted by the Defendant) submitted by the Defendant on the photograph taken on June 13, 2017, which was 17, and it is difficult to find out the part where pents were installed at the level of 17 meters as the complainant’s assertion. Rather, the Defendant installed a sign on the instant land at the Gyeonggidong Police Station on June 14, 2017, and it did not err in the misapprehensioning of the lower court’s determination that it did not contain any error in the judgment.
The prosecutor's assertion of mistake is without merit.
3. Conclusion Prosecutor.