beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The court below found the defendant not guilty on the ground that the defendant was guilty of the crime of destroying documents in full view of the following facts: the defendant was holding F with the ownership of F; the defendant seems to have known F with the ownership of the coal in this case; however, the defendant was found to have had the intention to commit the crime of destroying documents; and the defendant was found to have the intention to commit the crime of destroying documents. The judgment below erred in the misapprehension of facts and affected the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. The court below held that ① the first ownership of the instant application was in possession of I who was the originator, ② On the other hand, F was in possession of signature with J and I, and F was in possession of it.
The statement, J does not memory that I and B had the signature in I and F, and that I had the signature, and I had the written application in her place.
The statement, I prepared several copies of the written application, and signed by himself and J as one of them, and I received a signature from the Defendant, and he was the Defendant with a written application with a written application from the Defendant, and he was the Defendant with a written application from the Defendant, and was the Defendant, and was the Defendant, and the F was only the memory that was only F at the time.
In light of the stated facts, it was unclear whether there was a multiple head of I prepared by I, and it was unclear whether I followed the Defendant, and furthermore, it was not clear whether I was a person F, who was found to have been a person F, and ③ further, it was aware that the Defendant was a person F, not an I, by recognizing that the instant application was owned by the Defendant.
In full view of the fact that there is no evidence to view, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that the instant coal application was owned by F, and that the Defendant, despite the recognition of such circumstance, was made by the Defendant, who misleads the Defendant as the owner of the said coal application to destroy and damage it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.