The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts about the acquitted portion) that the Defendant has observed an act that the Defendant seems to have done on the side of the vehicle at the time of the appeal, such as walking the damaged vehicle on the day of the instant case, bringing the hack pipe behind the damaged vehicle, etc., and C

The victim E also stated that there was no defect in the damaged vehicle before this case in the court of original trial.

Comprehensively taking account of the fact that the defendant stated, it is proven that the flag of a vehicle is not likely to have any reasonable doubt.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misunderstanding the fact that the defendant was acquitted on the damage of property.

2. Determination

A. On March 6, 2017, the Defendant damaged the victim’s property by marking the right side of the Fstststren vehicle, the front door, and interslicker, the victim’s possession, which was parked there, in front of the C’s house located in Gangnam-gun, Gangwon-gun, Gangwon-do, on the ground that C did not give a coffee to the victim E only by giving a coffee to the victim E, or by taking the back of the back part of the back part of the repair cost of KRW 2,520,00.

B. Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the judgment of the court below is just in finding the facts charged for property damage only with the pictures taken of C and the victim's respective statements and damaged vehicles, and the circumstances are as follows: (i) there was no person who directly observed the tools that the defendant used for the damage, and (ii) there was no tools to be used for the damage of this case at the site; and (iii) there was time for the defendant to conceal tools at the time.

It is difficult to see the victim, ② in the police, the victim’s “it is a personal job of the defendant, and you need to carry with himself such things.”

“....”