The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The crime of this case may be deemed to have been committed by the defendant in light of the fact that the defendant's farm inside the defendant's farm discovered a residual part of toxic substances including toxic substances and restricted access to the farm, etc.

However, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant.

2. The lower court determined that: (a) considering the fact that (i) the ingredients of an agrochemical (spospa) discovered at the burine of a Defendant farm are identical with those of an agrochemical (spospa) found at the burine of the Defendant farm; (ii) the reduction contained in a burine is found in the Defendant’s air conditioners, and was found in the Defendant’s air conditioners; (iii) the burine was not at fault in the early spring; and (iv) there were no significant damage to the Defendant’s burging; and (iv) there was no possibility that the Defendant could have spread insects in nearby fruit farms; (i) although the Defendant farm was installed at the entrance and exit of the Defendant farm, it appears that the possibility of spraying insects was low; and (ii) in view of the fact that the pesticide content of the Defendant’s burging pesticide was not discovered; and (iii) there was no possibility that the Defendant did not have access to the Defendant’s livestock product.

Examining the above judgment of the court below by comparing the records with the records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no violation of law by mistake of facts as alleged by the public prosecutor.

The prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.