The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding (the point of a water tank), the water supply facilities located in Hongcheon-gun, Hongcheon-gu, Hongcheon-gu, Hongcheon-do, Hongcheon-do (hereinafter “instant water supply facilities”) are the water supply source for the village and the local water supply facilities are installed. The same applies to the village water supply facilities.

The court below found the defendant not guilty on the ground that it is difficult to regard the "water supply and other facilities for drinking water" as "the water supply and other facilities for drinking water" was erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

B. The sentence that the court below rendered unfair sentencing (one hundred thousand won in 500,000 won) is too unhued and unfair.

[The defendant and his defense counsel asserted to the effect that there was no criminal intent in the crime of unlawful acquisition and intrusion upon residence in the reply to the reason for appeal by the prosecutor, but the defendant did not submit a petition of appeal and did not find the reason for reversal of this part ex officio even after examining the judgment below]

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. On May 27, 2015, the Defendant: (a) around May 27, 2015, operated the instant water supply facilities using a method of diving the steel Hands of the water supply facilities to prevent the valley grain from entering the water tank of the water supply facilities; and (b) supplied public drinking water.

B. The summary of the judgment of the court below is that the water supply facilities of this case were supplied with daily water to the Hongcheon-gun Jin-gun 32 households in the past, but it appears that only one household (D's house) among the 32 households of the 32 households of the above village exclusively from the installation of local water supply facilities around August 2014, the water supply facilities of this case were supplied with daily water. Thus, it is difficult to view it as water supply for drinking water to unspecified or many people, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and this part of the

(c)

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined in the judgment of the court below and the trial of the party, the court below, as properly stated in its reasoning, ① in the past, Hongcheon-gun J. 32 households through the water supply facilities of this case.