The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal reveals that the defendant cultivated marijuana by creating an environment where marijuana grow even though he/she knows that it is a person in his/her own dry field, and that the defendant did not guilty of the facts charged of this case by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The court below erred in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that the Defendant, even from April 2014 to May 12, 2014, cultivated the field of small medicine owned by the Defendant, which was located in the Gyeongbuk-gun, Gyeongbuk-gun, and around that field, cultivated marijuana by cultivating 205 marijuana from around 205.

B. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the grounds that, in light of the fact that the Defendant’s habitats of marijuana are concentrated on the land managed by the Defendant, and the size of marijuana is various angles, and that the Defendant’s village was legally cultivated in the past, and thus, it seems possible to grow marijuana in the vicinity of the above village, the amount of marijuana discovered in the land managed by the Defendant is not large, and that the Defendant did not take such measures despite the Defendant’s failure to remove the said marijuana from the point where it was difficult to fish, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant was “a cultivation” of marijuana, and that there was no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(c)

1) Determination of the above-mentioned deliberation is based on the prosecutor’s burden of proof on the facts charged charged in a criminal trial, and the conviction of guilt is based on the evidence with probative value sufficient for a judge to have a reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, the defendant should also bear such burden of proof.