The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant did not destroy the victim’s vehicle as stated in the facts charged; and (b) the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone committed the same act as

It is insufficient to recognize it.

Even so, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Around August 24, 2017, the Defendant: (a) around 02:13, at the front ground parking lot of the 104-dong 1-2Ra, Gwangju Mine-gu, the Defendant 104-dong 1-2 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant charges”); (b) found the E-ray 3 vehicle owned by the victim D, and damaged the victim’s property by using a fluorculous tool with the front and rear door of the string of the vehicle, even though even after the front and rear door of the bitle, and the bitle section of the bitle, using a flusculous tool, with the flusing tool, to cover the repair cost of KRW 2,224,824,00,00 in total.

3. In the instant case, the most important evidence suspected of the Defendant’s damage to the victim’s vehicle, such as as written in the facts charged, is the field and the photo of the damaged vehicle and CCTV image CD at the scene of the crime, and there are other statements at the prosecution of the victim and at the court below.

According to the above evidence, the following circumstances are confirmed.

(1) On August 23, 2017, at around 09:00 on August 23, 2017, the victim parked the MF3 vehicle as indicated in the facts charged (hereinafter “instant vehicle”), and discovered that the vehicle was damaged by around 19:00 on the 26th of the same month.

was stated.

(2) After that, the victim confirmed CCTV images to the apartment management office, and as a result, on August 23, 2017, around 02:13, 2017, such as CCTV images submitted as evidence, the Defendant’s appearance was confirmed and suspected as a criminal.

In addition to the Defendant, the CCTV images are suspected to damage the instant vehicle.