The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant’s pents (hereinafter “instant pents”) destroyed by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant pents”) installed at the expense of the victim in addition to pents pents 15m and pents 30m as of April 3, 2012, and May 23, 2012. Although the Defendant’s land is installed on the Defendant’s land, it cannot be said that they correspond to the Defendant’s land because they cannot be seen as a thing that can be removed at any time

(2) The Prosecutor found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged of this case on the date of the first trial of the trial court. Nevertheless, the Prosecutor found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged of this case on the grounds that the instant pentice was consistent with the Defendant’s land and did not constitute another’s property. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine

2. In order for a movable to be recognized as being compatible with a real estate, the determination must be made by taking into account whether the movable is attached and combined to the extent that it can not be separated without causing damage to the movable or excessive expenses, and whether it can become an object of separate ownership in transaction with an independent economic utility from existing real estate in its physical structure, use and function

(2) As to the pents installed by the victim on May 16, 2003 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da14959, 14966, May 16, 2003). Therefore, as to whether the instant pents installed correspond to the Defendant’s land, the following circumstances acknowledged by the Health Team, the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and duly examined by the court below, namely, ① all of the instant pents installed at the expense of the victim, and ② the victim installed the instant pents in a manner that combines the pents and the instant pents that are made by the pole with the studs (s).