The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (the fact-finding person);

A. According to the Defendants’ statement as to the damage of and damage to property, the lower court found the Defendants not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that the reading center established by F cannot be deemed to correspond to the building, although the reading center installed by F was not in accord with the building.

B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor as to the special injury, it can be sufficiently recognized that the car driven by Defendant A was driven by Defendant A while F was behind the car, which is a dangerous object, and that the car was damaged by F.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and not guilty of this part of the facts charged.

2. Determination

A. As to the damage of property, at around 14:40 on November 23, 2017, Defendant B, at around 14:40 on the summary of the facts charged, he opened the F’s property to enable Defendant A to open the entrance door reading center. Defendant A damaged the F’s property by using repair cost of KRW 8,000 in the way of cutting the entrance door reading center of each of the above buildings back to its work site. Accordingly, Defendants jointly damaged F’s property. 2) The following facts or circumstances, namely, ① L and M from around 10 to June 9, 2017, namely, the fact that the lower court did not lawfully adopted and investigated the evidence to recognize, ③ from around 200 to 30,000 each of the above land and each of the above land owned and constructed the building’s ownership transfer registration by purchasing from around 31, 205, Q20 to 34,00 each of the above land and each of the above land owned and constructed each of the above land owned.