The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) by witness F and G of the lower court, even if the Defendant fully recognized the fact that he destroyed and damaged the abandonment of F-owned ships as stated in the facts charged in this case, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the facts charged in this case.

2. The lower court consistently changed the following purport: ① the Defendant: (a) from the investigative agency to this court, the Defendant removed miscellaneous trees from the victim’s miscellaneous trees; (b) there was no damage to the ship owned by the victim; (c) removed miscellaneous trees; and (d) removed miscellaneous trees and trends owned by the victim in the above miscellaneous trees and construction area; and (b) subsequently, the Defendant directly extracted miscellaneous trees from the court of the lower court to the effect that “the victim did not demand a larger amount of compensation, and did not pay the initially agreed amount.” (b) At the court of the lower court, the Defendant directly extracted miscellaneous trees from the Defendant’s miscellaneous trees in front of the house, which were damaged by the degree of 4-5 renunciation of miscellaneous trees.

In full view of the following facts: (a) the Defendant stated to the effect that she would not have fluencing her head by asking her will; and (b) the Defendant would have her fluencing her head by removing her flucing; and (c) according to the images of the field photographs taken around October 8, 2016, it appears that her flucing head had been removed at the time of the above photographing; (b) the flucing her head could not be verified; (c) the possibility that some flucings could have been damaged during the construction process after the date the Defendant removed flucing her head like the Defendant’s flucing her head; and (d) the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone, as indicated in the instant facts charged, could not be ruled out to have been damaged by her part during the process of construction after the Defendant promised to compensate for the damage.