The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor to the gist of the grounds for appeal, the fact that the defendant destroyed a fire by the victim.

2. The lower court determined that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone on the grounds as stated in its reasoning is insufficient to acknowledge the Defendant’s conviction, and that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

3. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined in the lower court’s judgment, the lower court was justifiable to have acquitted the Defendant.

① The Defendant consistently asserts from the investigative agency to the lower court that there was no damage to the instant crime, and there is no direct evidence as to the facts charged.

Witness

G in the court below, the defendant directly teared the low wave on the day of the case.

The phrase " was cited as "...."

was stated.

However, the defendant's statement was made under particularly reliable circumstances on the records.

Since there is no evidence to determine the seal, the above statement made by the witness G is inadmissible.

② Before the victim entered the Defendant’s workplace, the instant small wave did not have been damaged, and only the Defendant appeared negeneous attitude during the Defendant’s work. As such, the Defendant was presumed to have teared the instant small wave.

③ He did not tear when first entering the lower court, and she did not teared, and was unable to recognize the fact that the tear was teared even if the Defendant, F and the Defendant were to brea, by finding out his bags.

The Defendant and H made a statement (103 to 106 of the trial records). However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact that the Defendant and H had entered the same room again.

(4) The possibility that the fire-fighting of the defendant was already destroyed before entering the room may not be ruled out.

Therefore, prosecutors.