The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal can be sufficiently acknowledged that the Defendant had a criminal intent to recognize that the Defendant was a property owned by another person and destroy it, if he/she took into account the fact that the Defendant had committed an act identical to the instant facts charged under the ownership dispute over the instant manager’s house with the victim.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged 1) On January 9, 2015, the Defendant: (a) on the ground of Jeju Special Self-Governing Province, Jeju Special Self-Governing Province ownership around 14:40, the Defendant purchased a building to the victim; (b) on a non-authorized manager’s house built around February 1973 around 199, the Defendant purchased a building to the victim; and (c) on the land of Jeju Special Self-Governing Province, the Defendant purchased a real estate contract.

In other words, I would like to make it possible for the victim to do so if there is a real estate contract.

The answer was called “..........”

The Defendant, at his own warehouse, destroyed the hacks, which is an agricultural organization, and damaged the front door door door (f0cm x 120cm x 120cm m) of the victims of the city and the front door door (f0cm x 60cm x 120cm ).

2) On January 12, 2015, at around 10:00, the Defendant: (a) opened four entrances at a closed range equivalent to 600,000 won in the market price of the said manager’s housing, using the cres without the victim; (b) removed 4 windows at a 4 window equivalent to 500,000 won in the market price; and (c) damaged them.

B. The lower court’s judgment 1) The glass windows, mospits, etc. indicated in the instant facts charged correspond to the instant manager’s house.

Thus, the issue of this case is whether the defendant recognizes the above housing as the principal of another person's lawsuit.

2) First of all, according to evidence, such as the Defendant’s oral statement in the lower court, a certified copy of the registry, a real estate transaction agreement, an investigation report (the first purchaser of orchard and the first purchaser of the previous land) and satellite photographs, the following evidence were revealed: (i) G-H, I, and J land at Jeju were dead of the victim.

Since K purchased around December 31, 1998 from E on December 31, 1998, L again purchased under the same conditions as L on June 1, 2005, and on June 2005.