2. The instant crime committed by the Defendant, based on the following facts: (a) by altering and exercising an inspection certificate of well-dyings (WELING STUD) products to be supplied to a nuclear power plant, the Defendant acquired financial benefits to the affiliated company C; and (b) the said products are parts that have a significant impact on the safety of nuclear power generation; and (c) the amount of defraudation is not much than KRW 12 million; and (d) in light of the fact that the crime committed in this case, the crime committed is not exceptionally

However, in full view of the following factors: (a) the Defendant led to the instant crime; (b) the Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime; (c) the result of the follow-up inspection of the supplied well-dying goods was judged to have no problem in quality; and (d) the benefits that the Defendant directly acquired from the instant crime could not be relatively significant; (c) the Defendant was a primary offender with no record of criminal punishment; (d) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct; (e) the motive, means and methods of the instant crime; and (e) other factors that may serve as conditions for sentencing, such as the circumstances after the commission of the crime, are deemed unreasonable.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

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