The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant has no record of damaging the victim's mobile phone by hand.

2. Determination

A. On August 14, 2014, the Defendant: (a) around 23:16, the charge was destroyed to KRW 75,000 at the cost of repair by ggal lusularular phone owned by the victim while galal lusular phone, which was owned by the victim, galal lusular phone, was flusing around B in front of the Gu and stopped at the same time; and (b) making it difficult for the Defendant to drinking the passenger car of the victim C, who was standing in front of the Gu, and doing a dispute.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged by comprehensively taking account of various evidence.

C. A thorough examination of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, and considering the following circumstances revealed by the evidence, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to deem that there is sufficient proof to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt as to the facts charged of this case.

(1) There is no evidence other than the victim's statement as to the fact that the above hand-on system was damaged by the defendant's act.

(2) However, the Defendant and the Defendant’s friendship F, who had been on the same spot, continued in the investigative agency and the court, stated that the Defendant did not have a victim’s mobile phone by hand and the victim did not talk to the Defendant, etc. before the police officer called out, and that the police officer would not work on the part of the police officer.

(3) In addition, the investigation report (Evidence No. 48 pages) also states that the victim was 112 a reported phone, but in fact, the Defendant’s friendship F her relative f was hicking the victim’s desire to feel a threat to the victim’s speech and behavior as much as the reported phone was made. However, the Defendant had experienced a threat to the victim’s speech and behavior.