The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. If it was said that the request for remodeling of a building for the purpose of appeal was received and the request was made to remove unnecessary articles for the construction, the meaning of the request is in accordance with the rule of experience to accept that the client is “the value of property or the necessary articles have already been left,” and thus, the Defendant’s order to “drasing unnecessary articles for the construction” when requesting remodeling work to E should be deemed as an instruction to the effect that the goods inside the instant Cirreh 301 should be discarded.

Therefore, although E could recognize the defendant who had given the above order as to the above 301 books while carrying out remodeling construction, it was erroneous in the misapprehension of facts that the court below acquitted the defendant on the charges of this case, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The court below, in light of the fact that there is a statement at the police station in E's evidence that the defendant ordered E to abandon the victim's books, but understood that E's legal statement, i.e., the defendant ordered E to remove unnecessary articles for remodeling construction, and discarded articles in the meaning of removal, and stated in the police as above, and that the above book was old and has no value, and thus, lost the above physical properties at the police's judgment. In light of the existence of the book and the fact that the defendant stated that he did not speak to the defendant, it is difficult to believe E's police statement as it is, and the defendant stated that there was a victim's book within 301.

It was found that there was no evidence to acknowledge the existence of the above book and to prove that the defendant damaged it through E.

B. In addition to the above circumstances as stated by the court below, the court below is legitimate.