The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is clear that the ownership of the instant real estate and the instant real estate is on the part of JJ, and the office subject to the damage of property has been extended by JJ.

Therefore, although the defendant stolen and damaged the J's property, the court below acquitted the defendant on the facts charged of this case. The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is as follows: (a) from December 2012 to December 27, 2012, the theft Defendant removed 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 3,000 cracs (No. 36), and 35,000 cracs (No. 35), 1,000 cracs (No. 20, 21), 1,000 cracs (No. 20, 21), and 2,000 cracs (No. 13, 13, 13-2, 232, 26-2, 23, 26-2, 32, 27, 36-2, 36, 27, 36-2, 2, and 3, of the scrap.

2) On March 19, 2013, the Defendant damaged the property by mobilization of the 9 thm of the steel framed office of the wooden building owned by J, Co., Ltd., which was located in No. 28, 2013, and removing the 9m of the steel framed office of the wooden building.

B. The lower court’s judgment: (a) the Defendant stolen.

In consideration of the fact that some of the gale gales and columns were still pending even after the crime was committed, and that the defendant took over the machinery and equipment subject to factory mortgage from H and I, the defendant thefted scrap metal owned by J.

It is difficult to see, and ② The ownership of the damaged wooden building office is against J.