The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds of appeal seems to be similar even if the face of the defendant is not clearly confirmed, considering the fact that the defendant left the scene after committing the crime and entered the scene, which is the defendant's residence, and that the defendant was notified of the disturbance of drinking water on the day of the instant case, and that the defendant was also under the influence of alcohol and was also under the influence of alcohol, it is reasonable to view that the defendant is a criminal with regard to the crime of intrusion upon the instant structure and the damage of property.

Nevertheless, there is an error of misconception of facts that the court below rendered a not guilty verdict of this part of the charges.

2. Determination 1) On May 19, 2018, around 00:25, the Defendant affected the structure of the victim, entering the building, even though the Defendant installed a reduction around the area to prevent outside persons from entering the facility, which was operated by the Haakdong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City F victim G, from operating in the H station. However, the Defendant went into the inside and intruded the victim’s structure.

B) In full view of the circumstances stated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the Defendant sustained the damage of property and damaged the victim’s property by continuously impairing the victim’s structure and gathering eight fire extinguisherss equivalent to KRW 20,000 in front of the office, which were located in front of the office. (2) In full view of the circumstances as indicated in its reasoning, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to find the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, and on the grounds that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on this part of the facts charged.

3. The facts constituting the elements of a crime charged in a criminal trial for the judgment of the trial court are the prosecutor who bears the burden of proof, whether it is a subjective requirement or an objective requirement, and the confirmation of facts constituting a crime is not likely to have a reasonable doubt by the judge.