The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The Defendant and the victim had a de facto marital relationship at the time of purchasing the Ba (hereinafter “the Ba”) indicated in the facts charged, and the Defendant and the victim had already been in a de facto marital relationship. As such, the Defendant and the victim had to bear part of the purchase price of the Bara in the instant case, it belongs to the sharing of the Defendant and the victim

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles or misconception of facts that found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged of this case.

Judgment

A. The lower court determined as follows: (a) according to the evidence adopted and examined by the court, the first instance court determined that the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendant as to the instant loan on June 11, 2015, and that the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer with the victim on February 29, 2016, on the following grounds: (b) the Defendant was a proprietary property owned by the Defendant prior to the marriage; (c) the e-mail and the low knobs and low knobs attached to the front door of the instant loan should be deemed as owned by the Defendant, the owner of the instant knobs, and otherwise, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the knobs and windows were owned by the other party, the object of the crime of property damage.

B. In light of the records and legal principles, a thorough examination of the evidence submitted in the judgment of the court below and the trial court is conducted, and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the defendant had already been in a de facto marital relationship with the victim before completing the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the loan of this case in the name of the defendant, and that the victim had to bear part of the purchase price at the time of acquiring the loan of this case, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and it is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as pointed out by the prosecutor.