The appeal by the prosecutor is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

In full view of the place and condition where a mistake of facts was discovered, and witness D who first discovered marijuana, etc., the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant had cultivated 23 marijuana as stated in this part of the facts charged, was erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles.

The sentence of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution) by the court below is too uneasible.

Judgment

The lower court determined on the assertion of mistake of facts: (a) the first discovery of marijuana was made by the Defendant from the G living together with the Defendant to the effect that “the statement of the D, while entering the lower court, was the speech; (b) the Defendant appears to have been merely a congrative statement in relation to the cultivation of marijuana; and (c) there was ginseng in fact at the back of the house in which the Defendant and G were living; (d) the Defendant appears to have cultivated the ginseng; (e) the Defendant was searched near the Defendant’s house with a suspicion of hemp cultivation; (e) the Defendant was searched near the Defendant’s house but did not find marijuana; and (e) other police officers accompanied in the process were asked to the effect that “the Defendant was in mind,” and that it was difficult for the Defendant to acknowledge that the Defendant was not guilty of the first production of marijuana at around September 10, 2013, on the ground that there was insufficient evidence to acknowledge that it was difficult for the first time to prove that the Defendant had been under suspicion of growing marijuana.”