2. The Defendant, around 23:10 on October 24, 201, destroyed the property of the U.S. on the back side of the instant vehicle that was driven by the victim E, on the ground that the Defendant driven a dangerous vehicle, such as a sudden stop of the HM5 vehicle operated by the victim E, on the ground that the Defendant, at around 23:10, 201, she was driving along the road along the “D police box” in front of the “D police box” located in the GM5 vehicle in the SM.

3. Determination

A. The term “damage and damage” in the crime of causing property damage means destroying or reducing the utility according to the original purpose by exercising tangible power over all or part of the property owned by another person, and not only making it impossible to use the property for its original purpose but also making it impossible to use it in a state.

(See Supreme Court Decision 88Do1592 delivered on January 31, 1989, and Supreme Court Decision 93Do2701 delivered on December 7, 1993, etc.) B.

According to the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, although the defendant sM5 vehicle sM5 vehicle sM5 vehicle sM5 vehicle sM5 vehicle sM5 vehicle scood by E and the fact that the country of origin appears on the surface is recognized, this fact alone, which alone, became impossible for the above vehicle to be used for its original purpose due to the defendant's above act.

It is difficult to see that a vehicle has become unusable or temporarily, and there is no other evidence to recognize that the vehicle has been damaged.

C. Therefore, the court below's finding the defendant not guilty is just and acceptable in the same purport.

4. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit and it is in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.