The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. If the defendant considered the developments leading up to growing expenses, the cultivated quantity, the difference between the expenses for raw milk and the expenses for raw milk, etc., the decision of the court below which acquitted the defendant, despite recognizing that he/she's planting of plants is the expenses for raw milk, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

2. As the judgment of the court below properly states, the defendant consistently considered the flowers at the investigative agency's expense during the period from 4 to 5 years before the court of the court below, and stated to the effect that the defendant naturally reproduced, which he had been tried in front of his house, and that he naturally reproduced, as well as that there is no evidence of the fact that the defendant could easily distinguish the fireworks and the sheep, or that the defendant had knowledge or experience in relation to the distinction, and there is no evidence of the fact that the defendant was committed a drug-related crime or was punished, as well as that there was no evidence of the fact that the defendant used or used the frying expenses of the frying expenses by the defendant, in light of the fact that the defendant possessed and cultivated plants he cultivated by recognizing that they were the frying expenses of the frying.

The recognition is insufficient, and there is no other evidence to prove it.

Therefore, it is difficult to accept the prosecutor's argument.

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