The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds of appeal by the Defendant was as follows: (a) at the time of discovery in the instant vehicle, the Defendant was expected to take a head to hand with the driver’s seat and auxiliary seat; and (b) was in a situation where the Defendant was placed in the flab and was in a state where the Defendant’s head was damaged, and thus, the Defendant was damaged in the process of the head’s care.

may be sufficiently inferred.

Even so, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged in this case and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. On March 8, 2015, the Defendant stated the facts charged in the judgment below and the indictment of this case as “E 7 passenger cars” on the victim D owned by the victim D, SM7 passenger cars parked in front of Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, and the indictment of this case. However, in light of the contents indicated in 36 pages of evidence records, etc., this is deemed as erroneous and corrected as above.

The first door of the car was opened and damaged to the extent that the compliance location and indoor studio of the car is equivalent to KRW 430,000 in the repair cost.

3. Determination

A. The lower court’s judgment 1) In a criminal trial, the prosecutor bears the burden of proving the criminal facts, and the finding of guilt ought to be based on evidence with probative value sufficient to have a judge confident the truth of the facts charged to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, even if there is suspicion of guilt against the Defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do9605, Feb. 13, 2014). 2) According to the evidence duly examined by the lower court, the fact that the Defendant was divingd on the victim’s vehicle (hereinafter “vehicle of this case”) at the date and place indicated in the instant facts charged is recognized.

① However, the victim and witness F, who correspond to the facts charged in the instant case.