The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor as to the summary of the grounds for appeal, in particular, the fact that the Defendant destroyed and damaged the victim DNA by means of tamping two or more parts of the special motor vehicles owned by the victim D (hereinafter “victim”) by using the dynamic gate, taking into account the following indirect evidence, such as the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, such as the photograph of the situation of the crime, in particular, an automobile inspection and maintenance estimate, H, D, J, I’s investigation agency, and the court of original instance.

Nevertheless, the lower court acquitted the Defendant, and it erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. In light of the determination of the grounds for appeal, the burden of proof of the facts charged in a criminal trial is to be borne by the prosecutor. The conviction is to be based on the evidence of probative value, which makes the judge feel true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt as to the facts charged. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, the suspicion of guilt is against the defendant even if there is no such evidence.

Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.

(대법원 2006. 4. 27. 선고 2006도735 판결 등 참조). 그런데 원심은 ① H은 피고인이 전동드릴을 이용하여 타이어를 뚫는 모습을 직접 보거나 전동드릴이 작동하는 소리를 들은 것이 아니고, 전동드릴을 손에 들로 주위를 얼쩡거리는 모습을 보았을 뿐이므로, H이 수사기관에서 ‘피고인이 피해차량 타이어를 손괴하는 것을 목격하였다.’고 진술한 것은 추측에 의한 것에 불과하며, ② J, D의 각 진술은 타이어의 구멍이나 손상 부위를 직접 확인하지 않은 채 타이어에 바람이 빠져 있는 모습을 보았다는 것에 불과하고, ③ E의 진술은 피고인이 피해차량을 손괴하는 것을 목격한 것이 아니며, ‘바퀴의 옆 부분에 송곳 같은 것으로 찔린 자국이 보였다.’는 취지의 수사기관에서의 진술이...