The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of the summary of the grounds for appeal in light of the statements, etc. made by the investigation agency or the court of original instance by D, E, F, G, and H, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts that the defendant acquitted the defendant, even though the defendant was found to have damaged the property owned by the victim as in the facts charged.

2. Determination:

A. On October 19, 2012, the Defendant: (a) around 13:40 on October 19, 2012; (b) around 202 dong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City C apartment 202 dong-gu 509; and (c) when the Defendant was to live by leasing the above apartment, part of the long-term repair appropriations was not refunded from the victim D, which was the lessor; and (d) the Defendant broken down and damaged the aforementioned apartment by a method that is not known to the extent that the repair cost amounting to approximately KRW 2,820,00,000, such as the main kitchen, even visiting, and the small bank glass in the

B. The court below's decision is based on the presumption that the defendant was suspected of committing the crime of this case in light of the fact that E, F, D, G, and H's statements were made at each investigation agency and court of the court below as evidence consistent with the facts charged of this case, but there was a dispute over the return of long-term repair appropriations between the defendant and D before the time of the crime of this case and that there was a short interval between the time of contact between the defendant and D before the time of the crime of this case and the time of contact between E, and E and F when the defendant discovered the scene of crime, and each statement of G and H is merely a statement about the situation before and after the crime of this case, so it is difficult to view all the above statements as direct evidence to acknowledge the facts charged of this case (or it is difficult to believe that D's statements are inconsistent with D's telephone content submitted by the prosecutor, and lack consistency, and even if other evidence submitted by the prosecutor submitted by the prosecutor, the possibility of other persons than the defendant of this case should be excluded from the crime of this case.