beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error) is sufficiently recognized that the defendant damaged the victim's vehicle as stated in the facts charged.
2. Determination
A. On July 12, 2015, the Defendant: (a) around 11:00, at the management office of the “Seoul Apartment-gu Da Apartment-gu apartment; (b) the victim D, who was the head of the Residents’ Self-Governing Council, tried to talk with the victim due to the problem of delinquency in the management expenses and E, his/her his/her father, and F, who was another his/her father, had caused the dispute with the victim; (c) while participating in a dispute that was being kept in the next place, he/she participated in the dispute that he/she was carrying out, the Defendant destroyed the damage and utility of the said vehicle in the amount of KRW 432,258, such as repairing the back of the victim’s G E, which was parked in the said place five times after the victim’s lapsed by the labing labing lab.
B. The lower court determined as follows: (a) on July 15, 2015, when finding a vehicle from the back part of the vehicle and contact the victim on July 15, 2015, when finding the vehicle from the back part of the vehicle, and on July 15, 2015, when reporting it to the police on the following day, the victim was found to have left the vehicle without immediately checking the condition of the vehicle or preventing the victim from leaving the vehicle, even though the victim was able to report the act of driving the vehicle from the vehicle by the Defendant in the front of the vehicle in the front of the incident; and (b) the Defendant left the vehicle to repair the vehicle driver who was the vehicle in the front of the accident; (c) on the following day, the Defendant was found to have found the vehicle from the back part of the vehicle after finding the vehicle from the front part of the vehicle and contact the victim only after reporting it to the police on the following day. Thus, if the circumstances are like this, the Defendant’s defect is not likely to occur due to any defect in the vehicle in the victim.