The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor to the gist of the grounds for appeal, even if the facts charged in this case were fully convicted, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles and misconceptions of the facts, since the court below acquitted the defendant.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. The lower court determined that the instant facts charged was proven beyond a reasonable doubt on the ground that the evidence presented by the prosecutor was based on the following circumstances admitted by the evidence adopted by the lower court.

On the ground that it is difficult to view the instant facts charged, the lower court acquitted the Defendant.

1) The Defendant is highly likely to confuse the Defendant’s grave and the victim’s grave, in light of the following: (a) the Defendant’s deceased F grave (hereinafter “Defendant’s front grave”) was located in a place where J K K K K K 23 m (hereinafter “victim’s grave”); (b) both the Defendant’s grave and the victim’s grave were collapseed; and (c) the characteristics of both the Defendant’s grave and the victim’s grave were similar, such as the Plaintiff’s debate was located on the part of the grave; and (c) there was no characteristic, stone, stone, etc. clearly distinguishable from other graves on the part of the victim’s grave; and (d) there is no characteristic, stone, stone, etc. that is clearly distinguishable from those of other graves on the part of the victim’s grave.

2) The Defendant’s grave was also located in Yangsan-si C.

Therefore, since the Defendant opened a grave on the part of the Defendant and received compensation, there is no benefit to avoid risk and make the Defendant open a grave on the part of the victim.

3) The Defendant knew that he would open a grave on the part of the Defendant to the punishment.

B. We examine the above reasons in comparison with the evidence adopted by the court below, and consider the following reasons, the court below proved that the facts charged in this case was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The judgment of not guilty on the ground that it is difficult to see it is just and erroneous.