The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant, on the date and time indicated in the judgment of the court below, convicted the Defendant of the fact that there was no fact that the DK5 car owned by the Victim E (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) was damaged by impulging the impulgic tool.

2. Determination

A. From May 12, 2014 to 03:20 on the same day, the Defendant: (a) called the victim E who parked the instant vehicle to move or parking the said vehicle; (b) on the ground that the victim refused to move or parking the said vehicle, the summary of the facts charged led the Defendant to the utility of the property where it is difficult to identify the estimate of the repair cost by putting the vehicle into a flick tool from the front and rear door of the car assistant seat to the rear door.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case, comprehensively taking into account the records of police statements against victims E, internal investigation reports (verification of CCTV near the place where the incident occurred), CCTV video CDs (private theory), investigation reports (related to the confirmation of the location CCTV and black stuffs), and CCTV video CDs (crimes).

C. (i) According to the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, from 02:53 to 03:18 of the victim, who had moved and parked the instant vehicle and called the victim, the victim did not have access to the instant vehicle from 02:53 to 03:18 of the victim confirmed the condition of the instant vehicle. According to the private CCTV images, it is recognized that the Defendant's son was contacted with the back part of the instant vehicle, while the Defendant was walking and then the Defendant moved to the front part of the instant vehicle when the Defendant parked and moved to the house after leaving the vehicle. Accordingly, it is doubtful that the Defendant was impulged by the front half to the rear part of the instant vehicle as an insulgic tool.

She, however, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor to prove the facts charged in the instant case is the subsequent statement of victim E among the evidence submitted by the prosecutor.