As a result, the Defendant damaged the property owned by the victim by approximately KRW 632,00.

2. In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, the evidence alone presented by the prosecutor alone proves that the Defendant destroyed the main operating device to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt.

It is difficult to see, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

① The evidence supporting the facts charged lies in the witness H’s testimony, police statements made by H with H, video CDs, and estimates.

② According to the witness H’s testimony, the police statement protocol with H, and video CDs, the Defendant may find the fact that the Defendant gets off the power supply device located in the elevator with a enormous machine, but it does not necessarily lead to the fact that the function or utility of the central elevator main operation device was damaged thereby.

③ A witness K, who written a written estimate, has been replaced by the external location of an elevator in this court, but it was not capable of repairing any electric power supply equipment inside the elevator, and the replacement elevator also stated that it is another elevator, other than the central elevator.

According to the above estimate, it cannot be recognized that the function or utility of the main operating device stated in the facts charged has been damaged.

3. In conclusion, the above facts charged constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, a judgment of innocence is rendered after the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the purport of public announcement of judgment of innocence is declared pursuant to Article 58(2) of the Criminal Act.