The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles) of the instant loan certificate is owned by the victim. The Defendant knew of the subrogation repayment by the victim or at least knew of the dispute over the Defendant’s claims against the victim and G, thereby destroying the instant loan certificate. As such, the Defendant’s intent to commit damage is recognized.

However, the court below held that the victim has ownership of the loan certificate of this case.

There was no perception that the defendant would damage property owned by others, and there was no perception that the defendant would damage property owned by others.

Since the judgment of the court below acquitted the defendant, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the crime of damaging property or causing damage to property, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. Around November 19, 2015, the Defendant demanded that the Defendant, at the F store run by the Defendant located in Seosan-si, U.S., to present the victim D’s name to verify the quasi-loan certificate.

Therefore, the injured party, who shows the loan certificate to the defendant in the form of the loan certificate, received a certificate of loan, and caused the utility by tearing one copy of the loan certificate owned by the injured party in the form of a toilet change.

B. The lower court determined that G transferred the Defendant’s claim against the Defendant

Therefore, the victim is not entitled to exercise the right based on the loan certificate of this case. Thus, the victim is entitled to exercise the right based on the loan certificate of this case.

Now, even if there is ownership of the loan certificate of this case physically existing regardless of its content and legal relationship, there is a victim.

In light of the above, the Defendant believed from G that the victim was not a legitimate right holder of the instant loan certificate, and there was the Defendant’s negligence in recognizing the same.

As such, there is no awareness that the Defendant was damaged by another person’s property.

I determined that it could not be seen.