The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the facts charged is that a person who intends to cut standing timber in a forest is subject to permission from the competent authority. However, from March 201 to May 201, 201, the Defendant cut 8 gall trees, such as night trees, etc., which were growing to the forest above by using a saw, on the ground that the Defendant was not subject to permission from the competent authority for cutting standing trees, and that the number of trees, etc., which were growing to the forest above by using a saw, was growing up due to trees, without permission from the competent authority.

2. The lower court, based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, found the following facts: (a) comprehensively conducted the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, that C planted night trees, etc. without permission in the forest and field B in the South-west Sea owned by the Defendant; and (b) the Defendant cultivated the sacrine on the said land; (c) the aforementioned night trees, etc. were increased so as to have obstructed with withering; (d) the above night trees, etc. planted by C from March 201 to May 201, and cut the trees of the above night trees, etc. planted by C, which were planted by C, were consistent with the above land; (b) the ownership of the said night trees, etc. belongs to the Defendant; (c) the fact that the said trees, etc. are located within the said forest and field B cultivated by a dead field; and (e) the fact that it can be widely interpreted to the effect that, in light of the fact that there is no substantial reason to exclude the felling of trees from farming under Article 47(1)3 of the Creation and Management of Forest Resources Act, etc.