2. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone that the Defendant had the intent to damage the flowers and fireworks at the time when the Defendant laid the joint board into D’s house.

It shall not be readily concluded.

① Although there was a large marh mar on a small road in front of the D’s house, the Defendant was unable to mar the said marbly and obstructed the passage of roads due to the marbling of the said marg, it was difficult for the Defendant to put the said mar to D’s marth pents.

② The portion of this case was almost close to the pents immediately inside the pents of D’s pents, and the part of the pents into the pents with a pents did not contain any other articles such as pents.

Although the Defendant attempted to throw a joint board at any location where any article is not located, it cannot be ruled out the possibility that part of the joint board might have been rhhhyd on the wind where the joint board was no longer likely than anticipated (in this case, it is unclear as to whether the joint board of the Defendant shyd in the above process was destroyed solely on the screen of the CCTV images taken immediately after the occurrence of the instant case).

③ At the time, the instant pents of D were expected to be a steel bridge on the inner pents of D, but the Defendant was able to use the pents as a bridge to the opposite side of D’s pents. During the process of using the pents, the pents of D’s pents were folded.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. The appeal by the prosecutor of the conclusion is without merit and is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.