The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. On October 9, 2016, at the main point of “D” located in SM5, the Defendant brought an dispute with the other customers while drinking alcohol at C, and the damaged person, who was going on the street above the above main point, was forced to stop the Defendant, and the damaged person was forced to remove the Defendant, and the damaged person, who was on the street, laid down the stone on the street, fM5 car parked in front of the FM5 car owned by the victim, and damaged the repair cost of KRW 420,000 by putting the front of the FM5 car, and putting the front right-hand part of the FM5 car.

2. The lower court’s determination is difficult to recognize that a passenger car was damaged by the stones in which the Defendant was the victim, but it was recognized that the above damage was inflicted on the victim’s passenger car, and that the Defendant stated to the effect that the circumstance in which the victim was damaged in the court was not damaged by the victim’s vehicle, but was caused in the process of speaking the Defendant who was the victim’s day-to-day, and that there was a fact that the Defendant had been in the victim’s day-to-day trial, or that the said vehicle was damaged by the victim’s vehicle, and that there was no other evidence to acknowledge it, and that there was no other evidence to acknowledge it, thereby acquitted the Defendant pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act

3. The summary of the grounds for appeal recognized the fact that the defendant was at the time of the victim's daily driving and the victim's daily driving was at the time, and immediately thereafter confirmed the damage of the passenger car. In addition to the victim's statement and the vehicle photograph to the effect that the defendant's daily driving immediately before the defendant was at the time when he was at the time when he was at the time, the court below recognized the possibility of damage to the passenger car immediately next to the defendant, and that the vehicle was at the time when he was at the time when he was at the time, there was an intention to deliberate to recognize the possibility that the vehicle immediately next to

Since it can be determined by a person, dolusent intention about the damage of property is recognized.

The defendant at the court of the court below is the injured party.