The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is whether the Defendant had the intent to destroy and damage the property of CCTV 2 (hereinafter “the instant camera”). ① At the time of the instant case, C filed a complaint with the Defendant by entering a residence, theft, etc., and filed a civil petition with the Defendant to the effect that the Defendant would engage in entertainment tavern business by employing a entertainment entertainment loan in a entertainment bar operated by C. ② The Defendant asserted that C obtained the consent to remove the instant camera from her husband via building E, but only after approximately two weeks from the date the Defendant asserted that C obtained the consent, D removed the instant camera, ③ D submitted a confirmation document to the effect that it did not permit the removal of the instant camera at an investigative agency, and subsequently, made a statement contrary thereto at the court of the lower court, and it can be sufficiently acknowledged that the Defendant had the credibility of the aforementioned confirmation document, considering the circumstances leading up to the reversal of the statement made by the lower court, etc.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged in this case on the grounds that C and D permitted removal of the instant camera, could not be ruled out. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the defendant had a facility employee and removed the instant camera, and there was no explicit explicit permission that C or D had the defendant remove the instant camera in advance, but the defendant had the building manager E contact C with the removal of the instant camera on the part of C, and E was related to the management of the ordinary building.