The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that F, a public official of the competent authority, said F, the Defendant was a person related to the instant construction, and stated that the offender was specified and accused on the basis of the Defendant’s written statement of the person submitted by the Defendant, and that the Nonparty’s husband D’s statement with respect to the instant land was merely evidence that the Defendant did not cut and embling the instant land by using sckes, and thus, it cannot be readily concluded that the Defendant did not commit the instant crime. In light of the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, the fact that the Defendant cut, embling, and damaged the forest without obtaining permission for conversion of mountainous district

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant.

2. According to the records, the land of the chemical C is owned by E and D, and the person who obtained permission for conversion of a mountainous district for part of the land of the instant case can recognize the fact of E.

As to the facts charged in this case, the Defendant obtained a service of growing trees from D to the part of the land of this case, and cut trees. However, as to the facts charged in this case, the Defendant asserted that cutting, filling, and damaging the forest did not occur. As such, there is a letter of accusation that the person who committed the crime in this case is the Defendant, and a statement of F who is a public official of the competent authority.

However, even according to F's statement, F did not regard that the Defendant used cream or that the Defendant committed the instant crime. It is nothing more than that the Defendant stated that the Defendant was a person related to the instant construction and that the Defendant specifically accused the Defendant on the basis of the written statement of the person submitted by the Defendant, and that it was also an intensive examination of D as to whether D had provided cutting and banking services to the Defendant against D who appeared as a witness at the lower court, but D was also conducted.