All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. On June 4, 2013, the Defendants found that the entrance door was set off on June 4, 2013, around 21:00, the Defendants sought the victim E’s house and divided the first race to meet the victim’s home, and stated that they were waiting for the victim’s home, G, the victim’s wife started play-off at night on June 4, 2013. Around that time, he stated that there was no other creditors who sought money from the house, and that there was no other creditors who agreed to request money from the house. The lower court acquitted the Defendants of the facts charged, taking into account the following facts: (a) the Defendants stated that G was sent to the victim with the condition that G was satisfy in front of the door; (b) G was recorded at the time of the time, and (c) the victim’s wife G was not guilty of the facts charged, without any reasonable misunderstanding of the facts charged.

2. In a criminal trial, the burden of proof for the facts constituting an offense prosecuted is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction of guilt is to be based on the evidence of probative value, which makes the judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, even if there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant, it is inevitable to determine it with the benefit of the defendant.

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Do7261 Decided November 10, 201, etc.). Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment’s acquittal and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court based on the aforementioned legal doctrine, the lower court’s detailed reasoning is difficult to view that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone alone proves that the Defendants damaged the entrance door of the victim to the point of view beyond a reasonable doubt, and it is otherwise recognized.