The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In full view of the evidence duly submitted by the prosecutor, such as the process of the instant case, the victim’s statement, the result of the verification of DNA rocketing vehicles, and on-site CCTV images, the court below found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that the facts charged in the instant case constitute a case where there was no proof of crime. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. On March 18, 2013, the Defendant: (a) around 08:43, on the part of the 104 parking lot in Gwangju-si, the Defendant: (b) parked the Dunst vehicle operated by the victim C (the age of 31) before the 104 parking lot in Gwangju-si; and (c) caused the flick vehicle to be obstructed by the passage of other vehicles; and (d) caused the flick vehicle to be flicked on the blicks of the said vehicle to be flick

3. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that, according to the result of the verification by the lower court, there are at least 10 pande pandes in length on the straws above the straws above the straws above the straws above the 40 centimeters long, and the witness C made it difficult to recognize that the Defendant was damaged by the strawing on the straws above the straws. However, according to CD (2013-03-18:46 to 08:43:48 sections among the 104 parking lot.a6 files, the 204-03-18:46).

4. In the judgment of this court, evidence of criminal facts must be presented by the prosecutor, and criminal facts must be proven by the judge to have high probability to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt, and if there is no evidence to form such a conviction, it should also be proven.