The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In full view of the evidence presented by the prosecutor in the grounds of appeal, the court below found the defendant not guilty of the facts charged of this case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts, although the defendant could sufficiently recognize that the expenses of this case contain narcotics ingredients.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in this case shall not cultivate plants used as raw materials for narcotics without obtaining approval from the Commissioner of the Korea Food and Drug Administration.

Nevertheless, on June 17, 2015, without the approval of the Commissioner of the Korea Food and Drug Administration, the Defendant cultivated the 860 franchising cost, which is the plant used as a raw material for narcotics, in the Defendant’s garden C located in Gyeongbuk-gun C.

B. The lower court determined that, in light of the following: (a) there is no evidence to deem that the Defendant cultivated the quantity of fish in this case with the recognition that he was the raw material of narcotics; (b) rather, the Defendant had cultivated the quantity of fish in public in his dwelling garden that can be seen by anyone; (c) had dried various flowers around the house with good flowers; (d) reported the wild spawn and made a statement that he had brought about the weather; and (c) there was no criminal power, the lower court deemed that the Defendant cultivated the quantity of fish, which is subject to punishment, as the Defendant’s assertion, and sentenced the Defendant not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

C. In the first criminal trial for the judgment of the political party, the recognition of facts constituting an offense ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value, which makes a judge not to have any reasonable doubt. Therefore, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to sufficiently reach the extent that such conviction would lead to, even if the defendant’s assertion or defense is inconsistent or uncomfortable, there is suspicion of guilt, such as that the defendant’s assertion or defense is inconsistent or unfortunate.