The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, despite the fact that the land in this case constitutes a place where the general public free visits, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the grounds of the judgment of the court below is erroneous in misconception of facts.

2. Article 307(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that “The recognition of a criminal fact shall reach the degree of proof with no reasonable doubt.”

Therefore, the conviction in a criminal trial should be based on evidence of probative value, which leads a judge to the conviction that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt.

In a case where the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone does not reach the degree of conviction, the determination should be made with the benefit of the defendant even if there is a suspicion of guilt.

(1) The court below held that the Defendant had renounced the exclusive right to use the instant land on or around February 13, 2018. The land category of the instant land was changed to a road, and there was no change in the land category of the instant land to a road, and the construction of a multi-family house was conducted through the construction of the instant multi-family house, not through the passage of the instant land, but through the separate access road from the current multi-family house, which is possible access to the instant multi-family house, and the Defendant could use the instant land as the parking lot at least from around 2010 when the Defendant owned the land and the instant land, and the instant land was used as the parking lot at least from around 13, 2018. The court below rejected the Defendant’s application for the prohibition of use of the instant land as the passage of the instant multi-family house as 301.201.