The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Although it is obvious that the victim C used the victim's vehicle and damaged and consumed fuel during the period of leaving the vehicle to the parking agency operated by the defendant, the defendant does not present evidence to support the defendant by asserting that the defendant did not use the victim's vehicle. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts and receiving them without verifying the credibility of the defendant's assertion.

2. As to the prosecution of the prosecutor who temporarily uses the victim's motor vehicle by operating approximately KRW 300 km of 300 meters from the departure site of the Incheon International Airport from the port of Incheon International Airport from around 18:00 on July 15, 201 to around 19:00 of the same month without the victim's consent, the court below found the defendant not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that the only evidence as shown in the facts charged is sufficient to recognize the facts charged (the content is that the victim was returned after parking the said motor vehicle on behalf of the victim, and the vehicle was damaged after the return was confirmed, and the fuel was reduced).

The burden of proof for the facts charged in a criminal trial shall be borne by a public prosecutor, and the conviction shall be based on evidence with probative value that leads a judge to the conviction that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do6110, Feb. 11, 2003). The court below was just in holding that it is insufficient to recognize the facts charged solely with the statement in the police statement made by the victim of the police statement, and the defendant did not submit CCTV data in the parking lot or personal information of its employees.