There is an error in the judgment of the court below that acquitted the facts charged of this case.

2. Around June 2009, the Defendant began raising Chinese cattle in the former livestock shed (area of 54 square meters) from the investigative agency to the court of competent trial. On September 12, 2012, the Defendant consistently stated that, after completing a new livestock shed (area of 60 square meters) on or around September 12, 2012, the Defendant transferred the lawsuit in the former livestock shed to a new livestock shed and raised the lawsuit simultaneously from both livestock pens.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, namely, the written statement of D, the evidence corresponding to the facts charged in the instant case and the written statement of the court below in the court below, “ used the former stable until June 2013,” which is based on the Defendant’s statement, it goes against the Defendant’s consistent statement that he did not raise a lawsuit at the former stable after the completion of the new stable; there is no evidence that D discovered a trace of raising a lawsuit at the former stable, such as a trace of excreta or drinking, etc.; when considering the size of the new stable, it is difficult to find the reasons for the Defendant to raise a lawsuit by dividing it into both livestock pens even after the completion of the new stable, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant raised a lawsuit by simultaneously using the old stable and new stable.

The court below was just in finding the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged of this case, and did not err by misapprehending the facts.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.