The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the prosecutor's grounds for appeal (the factual errors or misapprehension of legal principles) asserts that the deceased E (hereinafter "the deceased") who is one's spouse operates F (hereinafter "the plaintiff of this case"). However, in light of the fact that when the couple operates the plaintiff of this case together, it is common to apply for permission for occupation and use in the name of the husband and the application for permission for occupation and use, etc. in the name of the husband, and rather, it is not always necessary to receive the plaintiff of this case as well as the compensation for removal of obstacles in the name of the couple, since the couple operated the plaintiff of this case together with the plaintiff of this case, the defendant directly filed a civil petition while he operated the plaintiff of this case with the deceased of this case. The defendant did not raise any objection even though he received the order of reinstatement from the management agency, and the possession under the Criminal Act refers to a pure de facto control relationship recognized by physical and practical action of property, it can be acknowledged that the defendant operated the plaintiff of this case without permission of the management agency

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the possession and mistake of facts or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the charges of this case.

2. The court below held that there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant occupied or used the farmland of this case, which is public waters, for the reasons stated in its reasoning. In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is justified.

This is more so in light of the fact that H made a statement to the effect that he was not the defendant but the deceased (Evidence No. 45 of the Evidence Records).

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the facts charged of this case is just, and there is no error as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. The appeal by the prosecutor of conclusion is with merit.