All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the damage of property, it is clearly confirmed that the cover areas destroyed by the evidence submitted are clearly identified, and the Defendants also entered the gap below the flood gates at the time of the crime prevention.

In light of the fact that the defendants did not assert that the creation of a floodgate for crime prevention has already been damaged in the court below, the court below found the defendants not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that the facts charged for the damage of property was recognized.

B. With respect to the refusal to withdraw, the Defendants did not leave the inspection of this case by explaining that the inspection of this case was without any access by the general public, and did not leave the inspection for one hour even though they demanded to leave the inspection. However, the lower court acquitted the Defendants of this part of the facts charged on the ground that the Defendants’ act did not recognize the legitimacy of the legitimate purpose of the act or the reasonableness of the means, thereby recognizing the charges of refusing to withdraw.

2. As to the damage of property, the lower court determined that: (a) the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, namely, ① the photographs submitted as evidence (Evidence No. 17 pages) alone, making it difficult to ascertain how the counter-up was destroyed; and (b) the witness G of the lower court did not directly see the face where the counter-up was destroyed.

The Defendants stated that they made a consistent statement as to whether they were damaged or damaged, ③ it is unclear whether or not they were damaged or damaged by the other parts than the counter, ④ even if there were damaged parts, it cannot be ruled out that the possibility of being damaged by other factors than the passage of the Defendants cannot be ruled out, ⑤ the Defendants were only under the window of the brupt of the brupt for the entry of inspection, and during that process, recognizing the possibility of the damage of the window of the brupt.

In full view of the fact that it is difficult to conclude, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor is alone.