The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of mistake of facts (not guilty part) it is sufficiently recognized that the equipment owned by the victim was damaged during the process of removal, and according to the testimony of P and S, K and D were sufficiently recognized by submitting a false accusation, even though K and D did not have any desire to the defendant at the time and place indicated in the facts charged, and thus, K and D were

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the damage and non-guilty portion among the facts charged of this case is erroneous in misconception of facts.

B. The sentence (one million won of a fine) imposed by the court below on the grounds of unfair sentencing is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. In light of the records, a thorough examination of the evidence of this case as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts is justified to render a not-guilty verdict on this part of the facts charged on the basis of the circumstances stated by the court below, and there is no error of mistake of facts as alleged by the prosecutor in the judgment below.

Therefore, the prosecutor's assertion of mistake is not accepted.

B. In light of the fact that the Defendant without permission infringed on the store of this case, but there are reasons to consider the background and motive thereof, the Defendant did not have any specific criminal power in addition to a few times of fines, and other various sentencing conditions as indicated in the Defendant’s age, character, conduct, environment and other records, the sentence of the lower court is deemed to be appropriate and excessive, and thus, is not deemed to be unreasonable.

Therefore, the prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing is not accepted.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

However, the 3rd page 21 of the judgment of the court below is the "store", the 6th page 16 "L", and the 7th page 14 "employee".