The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

The gist of the Prosecutor’s appeal is as follows: (a) J’s representative stated that there was no construction on the instant legal surface; (b) at the time, the interval between K’s factory and the existing stone shed installed on the instant legal surface would be narrow and so the distance between the two existing stone sheds, etc. could not be entered; and (c) the Defendant built a stone retaining wall equivalent to 4m of the surface of the instant legal surface.

It is difficult to recognize the fact that according to the comparison of the present survey of the completion drawing prepared by L surveying technician, it is true that the area of land currently usable by G at the time of completion is lower than the area of land that could have been used by G at the time of completion, so it is difficult to recognize that the area of land available by G has increased due to stone construction works for the area of this case, so it is difficult to recognize that the area of land that can be used by G has increased due to stone construction works for the area of this case. Thus, even though the defendant made a false statement contrary to his memory,

Judgment

A. Summary of the facts charged in this case