The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the case of another farm owner where the foot-and-mouth occurred, the rent was paid and the land to be buried was leased to the Defendant, and the Defendant had discussed about whether the land was buried with the owner of another land before the burial of the instant case, but it would have been possible to rent and bury the pigs on the instant land in addition to the method of burying the pigs on the ground that the rent was frighted, etc. The copy of the register of the real estate of the instant land indicated the owner F (hereinafter “victim”) and the address of the victim. The copy of the register of the real estate of the instant case did not make all such efforts even though the victim had been residing in the said domicile and had been able to obtain consent of the victim. In light of the fact that the victim did not first know the damage of the land and take any follow-up measures to ensure that approximately six months have passed since the burial was performed before the victim became aware of the damage of the land.

Since the defendant's act does not constitute a case where there is no other means or methods or is considerably difficult, it does not constitute an emergency evacuation or a justifiable act.

B. Article 2 of the facts charged of the instant case is an occurrence of reinforcement works for management due to burial under paragraph (1) of the facts charged, and constitutes a single act of causing property damage through series of activities under paragraph (1) and activities. Thus, insofar as the act under paragraph (1) constitutes property damage, it constitutes a series of acts constituting property damage

C. Nevertheless, the lower court acknowledged that the Defendant’s act constituted an emergency evacuation or a justifiable act with respect to the crime under paragraph (1) of the facts charged in this case, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant’s act was not the act of the Defendant, but the act under paragraph (2) of the facts charged in this case, and therefore, is not unlawful