The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal principle), according to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the defendant was found to have damaged the part of the previous crime by flaging the victim's front part of the driver's vehicle by flaging it.

2. Determination

A. In the first instance trial before the remanding of the case, the prosecutor’s ex officio determination interferes with the name of the offense in preliminary charge while maintaining the facts charged as the primary facts charged, and interferes with the application of Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, and the facts charged as follows.

2.(c)

1) As stated in the Paragraph, an application for changes in the indictment was filed with the same content as the conjunctive charge added, and this Court permitted the application, thereby adding the subject to the trial.

In the second below, the grounds for appeal against the primary facts charged by the prosecutor and the ancillary facts added by the trial prior to the remand are examined in order.

B. On October 21, 2012, from around 05:00 on October 21, 2012 to around 01:36, the Defendant destroyed the property worth KRW 273,816 on the repair cost by combining the handets to the front part of the vehicle on the ground that D parked in the first floor parking lot of the Daejeon Seo-gu Daejeon Sung-gu Seoul Building without permission, on the ground that D parked in the 1st floor of the 1st floor of the 201:36 on October 22, 2012.

2) In full view of the circumstances in its holding, the lower court’s determination is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant was damaged by the front driver in the course of combining handets only by the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise, and even if the Defendant did not have any negligence at the time, there was an intentional

For reasons of insufficient recognition, the lower court acquitted the instant charges.

Examining the records of this case closely, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and contrary to the judgment below, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and misapprehending the legal principles as alleged by the prosecutor.