The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to relevant evidence, such as the statement of the victim (misunderstanding of facts), the fact that the defendant destroyed the entrance door owned by the victim for about 20 minutes is sufficiently recognized.

Nevertheless, the court below ruled the defendant not guilty, and the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts.

2. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case was as follows: (a) around September 18, 2014, the Defendant: (b) around 21:40 on September 18, 2014; (c) around 21:40, Namyang-si, Dayang-si, 503 Dong 2001, the Defendant demanded several times to cut the boiler, and (d) the Defendant demanded several times to cut off the boiler; (b) but (c) on the ground of the change in the number of water, the Defendant divided the entrance of the said entrance into several times, but the said victim did not open the entrance for about 20 minutes; (d) thereby, the Defendant destroyed that the said entrance was installed at around 80,000,000 won by displaying the entrance.

3. The lower court’s judgment: (a) the document stating the testimony and statement of the victim that the Defendant destroyed the entrance of the instant case was found in the management office: (b) the Defendant was able to repair the exterior of the apartment at the office of management, and the cleaning service provider was boarding the door of the instant entrance when putting the door under the bottom from 20 to 20 floors; (c) the victim submitted a written estimate, including the cost of replacing the entrance of the instant case when seeking damages against the pertinent cleaning service provider; (c) whether the police officer dispatched the date and time of the charge, and at the place were damaged by the entrance of the instant case; and (d) whether the damaged part was found, based on the victim’s statement, it was impossible to believe the contents; and (e) the photograph submitted by the victim was not immediately before and after the date of recording, and thus, it is insufficient to recognize the direct relation between the facts charged and the facts charged, as well as the photograph submitted by the victim.