All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. According to the records of the judgment on the appeal by the defendant, the defendant was dissatisfied with the judgment of the court below on December 17, 2015 and filed an appeal. On January 7, 2016, the defendant received a notice of receipt of the records of the appeal from this court on the grounds for filing the appeal under Article 361-3(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, but failed to submit the statement of grounds for appeal within 20 days, which is the period for filing the appeal under Article 361-3(1) of the same Act, and the petition

In addition, the defendant's appeal is dismissed because it is not possible to find any specific reasons for ex officio investigation on the record.

2. Judgment on the prosecutor's appeal

A. In light of the statements made by the victim C, etc. of the gist of the grounds for appeal, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged as to the damage of property, although it could sufficiently recognize the facts charged that the Defendant destroyed the victim’s glass, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or omitting deliberation.

B. As stated in the lower court, the police interrogation protocol against the Defendant is inadmissible and admissible as it denies the content of the protocol.

또 피고인으로부터 자신이 유리창을 깼다는 말을 들었다는 C의 원심 법정 진술은, 피고인의 진술을 그 내용으로 하는 것으로서 검사가 제출한 증거들 만으로는 피고인의 진술이 형사 소송법 제 316조 제 1 항 소정의 ‘ 특히 신빙할 수 있는 상태 ’에서 이루어졌다고 인정하기 어려우므로, 유죄의 증거로 사용할 수 없다.

그 밖에 피해자의 진술이나 깨어진 유리창 사진 등 검사가 제출하는 증거들 만으로는 피고인이 실제 유리창을 깼다고 단정하기 어렵고 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없다.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the defendant on the ground that the facts charged for the damage of property in this case fall under a case where there is no proof of crime is justifiable, and thus, the prosecutor's misconception of facts or the

3. Conclusion