The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, such as the CCTV video in the parking lot, the text message sent by the defendant to the victim F after the crime of this case, the court below which acquitted the defendant of the fact that the defendant damaged the victim's vehicle, although it is sufficient to recognize the fact as stated in the facts charged of this case, has erred by misunderstanding the fact

2. The lower court determined that: (a) even the CCTV image of the parking lot was recorded in front of the victims, but the Defendant did not directly destroy the above vehicle; (b) although the Defendant stated that he would compensate the victim F for the vehicle repair cost; (c) there is no possibility that the Defendant would promptly compensate the victim F by taking into account the risk of being punished through a trial in the future; and (c) the above CCTV image was recorded only about two minutes before and after the date of the crime as stated in the facts charged; and (d) there is only a number of pages of the above CCTV images recorded in the facts charged; (e) the victims discovered that the vehicle was damaged from around 19:00 on February 15, 2013 to around 18:15, 2013, which was parked in the parking lot, there is no possibility that the Defendant could not have any other victim be found guilty of the damage of the above vehicle; and (e) there is no reasonable doubt as to the possibility that there was any possibility that there was any damage to the vehicle other than the above victim.

Examining the judgment of the court below closely with the records of this case, the above judgment of the court below is just, and the prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion.