The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of the legal principles or misunderstanding of facts (the point of damage to property) G is an individual circumstance as long as it is currently residing in Japan and it is inevitable to return to Korea between the parties.

Since the police statement in G has been known, it is admissible in accordance with Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

However, the court of first instance determined that the above statement is inadmissible as evidence. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the admissibility of evidence.

(2) According to the evidence submitted by the prosecution, such as G, K, and L’s statements, the lower court’s judgment that found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misapprehending the fact and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, even if it is sufficiently recognized that 1g of the 25-year prote would be the object of the crime of damage to property as G ownership.

B. Illegal sentencing [the obscenity of violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (obscenity using communications media)] of the second instance court's punishment (2 million won) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Determination as to the Prosecutor’s misunderstanding of the legal principles or mistake of facts (1) of this part of the facts charged on December 7, 2015, the Defendant destroyed the Defendant’s 25-year prone 171,400 market price per annum of the 25-year prone 25-year prone 171,40 per annum, on the ground that, in front of the house gate of the Victim G (M, E, E, E, E, 52 years old) located in G, G, and G, the Doar, a Doar, entered his house adjacent to the Doar, on the ground that the Doar was f, and the Doar was f

(2) The lower court rendered a judgment on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, on the grounds that this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of criminal facts, and rendered a judgment not guilty by the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

(3) Determination on the first argument (A) In order to constitute “foreign residence” among the requirements for recognition of admissibility pursuant to Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the fact that a person who needs to make a statement is in a foreign country is insufficient.