The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 4,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is in accordance with the empirical rule to view that various evidence required by the prosecutor, such as the victim's investigative agency, the victim's statement in the court below, part of H's statement, and other evidence required by the prosecutor, and each floor distribution team of the sixth-story building are rarely and collectively cut off and in accordance with the direction of the defendant, and as long as the defendant who lost in the related civil procedure had a good appraisal for the victim, the defendant was found guilty of the facts of this case, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the charge of the facts of this case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by erroneous determination of facts.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal of ex officio, the prosecutor applied for the amendment of an indictment to the effect that the amount of damage inflicted by the person causing the damage to the property of this case among the facts charged against the Defendant was changed from the original “amount equivalent to KRW 54,814,00,00” to the “unjustifiable repair cost,” and this court permitted the amendment and thus deemed that the subject was changed in relation to the exercise of the defendant’s right to defense. Thus,

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the prosecutor's argument of mistake of facts concerning the changed facts charged is still subject to a party member's determination, and this will be examined.

3. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts

A. The lower court’s judgment: (a) under the judgment that the Defendant delivered the instant building to the complainant,: (b) ordered the son to remove the facility to perform the duty of restoration as a lessee; and (c) did not point out or supervise the object of direct removal at the removal site; and (b) Police Officers H, upon receiving the 112 report from the Appellant, dispatched to the site at the time of the lower court’s trial, made telephone communications with the Defendant at the time of the lower court’