The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the general rule of experience of the grounds for appeal, the appraisal report submitted by the injured company, etc., the defendant can at least recognize the fact that the defendant claimed insurance money with willful negligence of insurance fraud, but the judgment of the court below which acquitted the facts charged of this case is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts.

2. Determination

A. The lower court rendered a judgment on the following grounds that it is difficult to deem the instant facts charged to have been proven solely by the evidence submitted by the prosecutor. The lower court acquitted the Defendant.

According to the record, the Defendant removed a mechanical parking lot installed in the instant building parking lot on November 2018, and installed concrete construction in part of the parking lot, installed a parking-prohibited sign in the parking lot in SUV car on January 27, 2019, the fact that SUV vehicle shocked the parking-prohibited sign around October 27, 2019, and that the gold on the parking lot floor was in the vicinity of the parking-prohibited sign. Considering the point of time of concrete construction work, the point of occurrence of traffic accidents, etc., the Defendant could have thought that he would have taken a gold on the parking lot floor due to traffic accidents occurred on January 27, 2019. The evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone is difficult to deem that the Defendant did not have any other evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant had claimed insurance money from the victim of the instant building due to the intention to acquire the insurance money.

B. The recognition of facts constituting an offense in a criminal trial for the decision of the political party shall be based on strict evidence of probative value, which makes a judge not to have any reasonable doubt. Therefore, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to sufficiently reach the extent that it would lead to such conviction, the defendant’s assertion or defense is inconsistent or unreasonable.