The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts) was posted without permission by the Defendant at the time and place specified in the facts charged in the instant case. In addition to each evidence indicated in the lower judgment, the Defendant may present a written request for adjudication, namely, evidence of the facts charged. Even if the above evidence alone is insufficient, the lower court should examine the police officer in charge as a witness and clarify the facts clearly, but the lower court did not guilty of the facts charged in the instant case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles or misunderstanding

2. As to the grounds for appeal, the court below held that the defendant, only by the evidence presented by the prosecutor, posted advertisements without permission at the time and place specified in the instant facts charged.

On the ground of insufficient recognition, the lower court acquitted the instant charges.

In light of the reasoning of innocence in the judgment of the court below and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the above judgment of the court below seems to be justifiable, and there is no error of law by mistake of facts as alleged by the prosecutor.

A. The prosecutor asserts to the effect that the court below rejected the credibility of the 6th page of the evidence record of the written request for a trial. However, the court below's "written request for a trial and notice of payment of a penalty for notice" appears not to mention only the above evidence but to have been formally enumerated. The court below seems to have considered the above written request for a trial as an element of determination. Thus, the prosecutor's above assertion is rejected.

B. The prosecutor found that the court below erred in failing to clarify the facts by examining a traffic control police officer as a witness.

However, in a criminal trial, the burden of proof for the criminal facts which have been prosecuted exists on the prosecutor (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1151, Jul. 22, 2010, etc.).