The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the reasons for appeal was that the victim purchased the instant house on June 18, 2008, a 26.45 square meters of the first floor, 19.83 square meters of the first floor, Doz. (hereinafter “the instant house”). The instant house was actually constructed on June 18, 2008. The instant house was registered with D and F without surveying land boundary, and the victim did not own and manage the instant house from K and L, etc., to lease it to the owner of D, and the Defendant was actually paying the land rent to the owner of D, and the Defendant purchased the instant house on January 208, 2008, and removed the instant house from the owner of D’s land to the owner of D’s land and completed the instant registration of the ownership of the instant house. According to the reasoning that the Defendant was aware of the fact that the victim did not actually purchase the instant house from the owner of D’s land to the owner of D’s land, and that the Defendant was aware of the ownership of the instant house.

Comprehensively taking account of the fact that the Defendant stated, from around 2010, sufficiently recognized the fact that the instant house was owned and managed by the victim and intentionally damaged it.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant as to the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

2. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is as follows: “The Defendant is not a victim E-owned building (the total area of housing area of 46.28 square meters) located in Gyeong-gun, Gyeong-gun on November 25, 2015,” the size of the instant house.