The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine) is as follows: (a) the Defendant, together with the co-defendant A, opened a opening door with the lower court, thereby jointly committing the crime of destruction by causing the escape of the dog; and (b) the Defendant had dolusent intent to do so; (c) thus,

2. The judgment prosecutor: (a) the Defendant saw the Defendant to drink together with A, and the Defendant was forced to unfold the Defendant’s dog in order to let the us drink.

(2) The CCTV images do not show any behavior that the Defendant intended to speak A when cutting a dog, so there is dolusent intention to take part in the A’s act, as it did not appear when cutting a dog.

Based on the fact that the Defendant conspired with A to damage the instant case.

The argument is asserted.

However, the following facts and circumstances recognized by the records and pleadings, i.e., ① the Defendant appears to have taken a house before opening a opening door, and there seems to have been no separate participation in the act of A thereafter; ② the Defendant himself/herself and the Defendant stated that he/she did not have any separate participation in the act of A in an investigative agency; ③ the Defendant made a statement at an investigative agency for the same purpose as A; ③ the Defendant made a statement at the investigative agency to the same effect as A, and the Defendant stated that “A is the same as having no opening door.”

(4) The defendant prepared a merm and made it on the opening of the body.

Even if the defendant did not participate in opening the opening door as seen earlier, he/she is obligated to re-enter the opening door or close the opening door unless he/she participated in opening the opening door.

It is difficult to see, 5. The defendant's opening together with A.