The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error of facts (not guilty part of the judgment of the lower court) The Defendant received the parts recorded in the facts charged when there is a business relationship with the victim, and thereafter, the victim managed them, which is the property jointly owned by the Defendant and the victim.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment on the charge of causing property damage among the facts charged in this case.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (six months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. At around 02:50 on November 2, 2018, the Defendant: (a) destroyed the part of the facts charged on the ground that, in the restaurant of “D” (hereinafter “instant restaurant”); (b) on the ground that the Defendant was unable to move fire due to the business problem with the victim C, while going to a dispute with the victim C, the Defendant destroyed the part of the instant chemical (hereinafter “instant chemical”) on the floor of the market price that was located there.

B. The lower court rendered a not guilty verdict on the following grounds: (a) the evidence alone submitted by the Prosecutor alone, on the grounds of the circumstances stated in its reasoning regarding the damage to property among the facts charged in the instant case, is insufficient to acknowledge that the chemicalization in this case was owned by the victim; and (b) there

C. 1) The agreement under the Civil Act is a contract under which two or more persons agree to jointly operate a business by mutual investment, and is limited to the agreement that jointly runs a specific business, and the degree of the common achievement of the agreement cannot be deemed as satisfying the requirements for establishment of the association (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da79729, Feb. 11, 2010). 2) In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the instant case is a health care unit and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court.