The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the fact-finding) is as shown in the facts charged by the Defendant, i.e., the victim’s house is well-known, and the victim’s car sponsed and sponsed, thereby damaging the victim’s car sponsed on the front of the victim’s house.

2. The lower court stated that ① on July 20, 2014, the victim C did not confirm that the vehicle was spreaded on the road behind the parking lot after being fastd with the victim C, and that there was a guard company that discovered that the vehicle was spreaded around the parking lot around his very short time, and that the CCTV was not confirmed after checking the new wall on July 20, 2014. The screen recorded on the CCTV screen was the victim’s parking lot before the victim’s parking lot, and that the CCTV was not checked. The Defendant could not be found out of the record because it was impossible for the victim to use it for 10 days after the victim’s house, and that it was impossible for the Defendant to use it for 20 days after 10 days after the victim’s house was removed, and that it was impossible for the Defendant to use it for 10 days after the victim’s new wall and 14 days after it was found that there was no possibility for the victim to use it.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is not accepted.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is justified.