The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-finding (non-fluor part) The statement of the victims that the defendant had shocked the wooden columns of the building owned by the victims by using the Tracker, which is a dangerous object, is consistent, and the Tracker and the wooden pole conflict in front and rear, not on the left and left, as the judgment of the court below.

Even when assumed, it is not impossible to destroy a weak part of the pole’s roots that directly conflicted due to the conditions such as the size of the collision angle or force between the Twitter and the wooden pole. The weak part of the pole’s pole was destroyed by shock, and it is likely that the part might have been moved to the left and left in the process of slowly collapseing by tanking the weight of the roof, and the lower court did not seem to be able to contact the wooden pole when the qui of the Twitter’s quith is contaminated with the ground.

However, the location of the Tracter and the distance to the wooden pole are about 2 meters, and if the Tracator is acceleratingd, it is sufficient to shock the wooden pole by 2m or 40m since the Tracter can move up to 2m or more.

In light of the fact that it appears, it can be found guilty of damaging special property among the facts charged in this case.

Even if the Defendant, such as the Defendant’s statement, left the bean local area in the black box, this constitutes a property damage, and thus, it is unlawful for the lower court to have found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged without recognizing the Defendant guilty of the damage of the property that is the reduced fact.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (2 million won in penalty) is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court’s determination is sufficient to have a reasonable doubt solely based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, in full view of the following circumstances admitted by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court.