The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) by the lower court was aware of the fact that the victims of the instant office were managing the victims.

It is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant managed the instant office by F.

In recognition, it appears that the office of this case was entered with F’s consent, so it is difficult to recognize the defendant’s intention to damage property and intrude a structure only with the evidence submitted by the prosecutor.

The decision was determined.

However, F consistently told the Defendant to the effect that “the victim contact and handle work” was consistently made by an investigative agency up to the court below’s trial.

The F's statement is reliable, so the Defendant had intention to damage property and intrude into a structure.

It is reasonable to view it.

Therefore, there is an error of misunderstanding of facts in the judgment of the court below.

2. The judgment below accepted the defendant's defense counsel that F consented to entering the office of this case, and whether the witness F's "it is not necessary to move the horse to another place even upon receipt of the last telephone."

At the same time, the victims responded to the purport that “the work is handled by contact with the victims.”

“In the court of the court below that it is difficult to believe that the statement in the court of the court below

In determining the facts charged against the defendant on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is difficult to recognize the intent to destroy property and intrude a structure, the court acquitted the defendant of the facts charged.

In light of the principle of presumption of innocence and the principle of criminal burden of proof, if the first trial decision rejecting the credibility of the witness's statement supporting the facts charged is followed, it is sufficient and reasonable to accept it in light of the principle of presumption of innocence and the principle of criminal burden of proof.

In this regard, in light of the contents of the judgment below and the evidence duly examined in the court below, the defendant and F are limited to the court below.