The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In full view of the statements by the complainants and CCTV images, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the defendant on the grounds of the judgment of the court below is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts, although it is possible to acknowledge the fact that the defendant damaged property.

2. The lower court acquitted the Defendant of the instant facts charged on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone precludes a third party, other than the Defendant, from cutting off the CCTV camera electric wires, and it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant committed the instant crime without any reasonable doubt.

On the other hand, the burden of proving the criminal facts prosecuted in a criminal trial is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on the evidence with probative value sufficient for the judge to have a reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true, so long as there is no such evidence, the suspicion of guilt is between the defendant even if there is no such evidence.

Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.

(2) On September 8, 2017, the head of the management office of the apartment of this case filed an application for the repair of the CCTV on the part of LH, upon considering the evidence duly adopted by the lower court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do10096, Jun. 25, 2009). Around September 8, 2017, D, the head of the management office of the apartment of this case, filed an application for the repair of the CCTV on the part of the head of the management office of the apartment of this case.