The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The lower court determined that the Defendant could not be deemed to have proved without any reasonable doubt that the Defendant destroyed the part of the cellular part of the damaged vehicle.

However, according to the legitimate evidence shown in the instant case, in particular, the black picture that taken the Defendant, it is sufficient to recognize the fact that the Defendant destroyed the part of the damaged vehicle.

2. The court below determined as follows, based on the records of this case, the following circumstances: (i) the Defendant stated that there was no charge as to the facts charged from the investigative agency to the court below; (ii) according to the above black picture of the Defendant, the Defendant’s front part of the damaged vehicle can only be confirmed as a hand, and the Defendant’s front part of the damaged vehicle can not be taken as a clear door that the damaged vehicle is damaged by stick; and (iii) the damaged vehicle was damaged by a flasing method of flasing the front part of the driver’s seat door and the front door part of the steering gate (Evidence No. 10-11 of the evidence record); and (iv) according to the video mentioned above, the Defendant could not be excluded from the probability that a third party, other than the Defendant, was damaged by the damaged vehicle without reasonable doubt.

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in light of the records, the court below's above fact-finding and judgment are justified, and there is no error of law of misunderstanding of facts as alleged in the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor.

In addition, even if the result of the examination of the evidence on the above black image in the trial of the party, the defendant puts his body on the front of the damaged vehicle in front of the damaged vehicle, and puts his body on the front part of the damaged vehicle.