The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Although it is sufficient to acknowledge the facts charged in the instant case in full view of the evidence presented by the Prosecutor and the statements of E, G, and F in the original court, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant consistently denies the facts charged in the instant case by asserting that the investigative agency had consistently extracted the pine trees owned by the victim from the investigative agency to the instant court without permission, and thus, there is each statement in the E, G, and F’s investigative agency and the lower court’s court that are evidence to support the facts charged in the instant case.

B. The evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the following circumstances acknowledged by the records of this case, namely, "G made a statement at an investigative agency that "G was engaged in the work of extracting trees from the victim's small tree field, and AC AC hys (defendants) considered the appearance in the extraction field." In the court of the court below's appearance as a witness, "It was judged that the defendant's face was unsatisfying at the time, and the defendant's face was known and instructed at a distance of about 100 meters. It was seen that the defendant's face was not considered, but that the defendant was the same as the defendant, who appeared to be the defendant in the behavior of the instructed person, not the defendant." The purpose of the investigation agency and the court of the court below's testimony at the investigative agency and the court of the court below stated that "the part of the defendant's testimony at each time stated in the facts charged of this case is nothing more than that of the defendant's own hearsay evidence, but it cannot be accepted as evidence of G."