The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Although it is reasonable to view the Defendant’s act of tearing the written statement of the grounds for appeal (legal scenarios and unfair sentencing), the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and thereby led to the outcome of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment with labor for six months and one year of suspended execution).

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of legal principles, the court below held that the crime of invalidation of public documents under Article 141 (1) of the Criminal Act is the object of the crime without asking official documents or private documents (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Do4350, Feb. 24, 199). In this case, the defendant teared before submitting a statement to the police officer, and it is difficult for the prosecutor to conclude that the defendant's tear has yet to be used or kept for the purpose of using it. 2) As to this, the prosecutor argued that the defendant's act constitutes invalidation of public documents on the grounds of Supreme Court Decisions 81Do1830, Aug. 25, 1981; 80Do127, Oct. 27, 1980; 80Do1127, Aug. 25, 1981; 2008Do1881, Aug. 18, 1987.

3. On the other hand, the prosecutor asserts that the defendant's tear documents are in the form of a statement generally used by the police station, which the defendant was obtained from the police officer, and the police officer delivered the above statement on the premise that the defendant would have submitted it again, but the defendant could tear it, and the public document invalidation is established.

However, the crime of invalidation of public documents is identical to the crime of damage.