The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is to install a blocking device that prevents the victim from entering his residence, etc., and the defendant's act constitutes property damage, since the defendant's act not only made it impossible to use the pipe for the purpose of use, but also made it impossible to conceal it in the grass forest to use it, thereby impairing its utility.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the charged facts of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles.

2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court in addition to the facts and circumstances revealed by the lower court, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be deemed as having been proven beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the facts of the lower judgment or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which acquitted the Defendant of the instant facts charged.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

① In light of the fact that the victim stated to the effect that he installed a blocker to control the access of external vehicles, etc. after installing the pipe in this case, and it appears that the boundary survey was not conducted separately before installing the pipe in this case, and the above pipe was not used for the purpose of generally indicating boundary, it is difficult to deem that the installation of the pipe in this case has the utility of a boundary mark, and it is for the installation of a future stoper.

[Evidence Records No. 31] 2. At the time of the instant case, only a pipe was installed and a shuttle was not installed. Even if the Defendant extracted the pipe, the pipe remains in the same location.