A. According to the campaign doping test table, satellite photographs, etc. prepared by the public official in charge of the Ycheon-gun Office, which the prosecutor submitted a mistake of facts (as to the acquittal portion), the judgment of the court below that acquitted this part of the facts charged, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unreasonable sentencing (a fine of four million won) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In a criminal case of a judgment on a mistake of facts, the prosecutor presents evidence that there is a criminal fact in the criminal case of a judgment on a mistake of facts, and even if the change of the defendant's lawsuit is unreasonable and false, it cannot be disadvantageous to the defendant due to such reason. The proof of criminal facts must have a judge have a high probability to recognize high probability to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt, and if there is no evidence to form a conviction to the extent that there is no evidence to establish such a degree, the

Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.

(2) In light of the relevant evidence and records, the lower court’s determination on the charge of violating the Management of Mountainous Districts Act, on the ground that the Defendant had already lost the nature of the mountainous district under Article 2 of the Management of Mountainous Districts Act at the time of purchasing the forest of this case in November 30, 2007 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do163, Nov. 30, 2007). Thus, the Prosecutor’s aforementioned assertion is without merit.

B. In light of the motive, means, and result of the instant crime, the circumstances after the instant crime, the absence of criminal punishment, and other various conditions of sentencing as indicated in the pleadings, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, and environment, the lower court’s sentence against the Defendant cannot be deemed unfair, and thus, the prosecutor’s above is the prosecutor.