The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Unlike the Defendant’s contents of a mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine (fixture without doubt), the Defendant did not have any physical contact with C or C, and there was no fact that there was no fact that C or D was in the process of vagabonds with C or D.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that found the defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the premise that the defendant exceeded the ditches with C and D, is judged by the simple circumstantial manager of the defendant's report of C, and there is an error of law or misunderstanding of legal principles.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (a fine of 1.5 million won) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles in a criminal trial shall be based on the prosecutor’s burden of proving the facts charged, and the conviction of guilt shall be based on evidence with probative value, which causes the judge to have the conviction that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do10316, Jan. 16, 2014). The requirement that the reported facts are established in a case where the facts reported for the purpose of having another person subject to criminal punishment or disciplinary disposition go against the objective truth, and the requirement that the reported facts go against the objective fact should be proven. The mere passive proof that the authenticity of the reported facts cannot be recognized is readily concluded that the reported facts are false contrary to the objective truth, and the establishment of a crime without accusation is not established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do15767, Feb. 13, 2014). Furthermore, the reporting of false facts goes against the objective fact or reporting, even if it refers to an objective fact.