The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the complainants failed to accurately state the area and number of trees at the risk of the damage caused by D, but since the complainants well-known in the investigative agency and the court, and consistently asserted the fact of damage at the two risk of the complainants owned by the complainants, the court below rejected the complainant's statement without reasonable grounds and acquitted the facts of this case. The judgment of the court below is erroneous 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 as follows: (a) from around 10:00 on August 31, 2013 to around 11:00 on the same day, the Defendant was well-known by using the improvement of the number of trees at the risk of the complainant’s ownership, which was planted in the vicinity of the instant case, for the purpose of entering a charnel house (hereinafter “the instant trees at the risk of the two persons”).

B. The judgment of the court below is just by the complainant's statement that the defendant had well-knownness of the trees of this case. ① The complainant failed to make a specific and consistent statement on the area and number of the trees at the risk of the damage inflicted on the day of this case; ② the complainant stated that the defendant died of all the cultivated things of the complainants, such as approximately 400 square meters and laves, etc. for several years using medicine and improvement and saw. ② The complainant seems to have neglected or presumed to have caused all the damage. ③ The complainant stated that the defendant had not been aware of his well-knownness of the trees at the risk of the above two times at the investigative agency. ③ The complainant stated that the court of the court of the court of the court below that the defendant had not been aware of his well-knownness of the trees at two times, and that the defendant did not enter the land owned by the complainant's land on the day of this case.