2. The evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and, in particular, the prosecutor pointed out that “C according to the result of a reply to the fact of call details, there is no telephone call details from E to July 2015, the place of business recorded in the facts charged (hereinafter “the instant business site”) located in Gwangju City.” However, the call details inquiry about the call details concerns Defendant (P), not from E (P) and Defendant (P)’s call details. Even if the address of the base station where the call details were sent is the address of the base station where the call details were sent, it is limited to the number of telephone calls of the Defendant during the inquiry period, and therefore, E did not have a call call of the Defendant during the inquiry period.

It is difficult to conclude that the points relating to the transaction in which goods are purchased from L’s food materials to E’s account are set aside in the name of the Defendant, but the Defendant also transferred marina points while leasing the place of business as indicated in the judgment below to E.

Examining the lower judgment in light of the following circumstances: (a) there is statement (217 pages of the trial record) and (b) it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant was operating the instant business site on the ground that the transfer of Mat Points to the point while transferring the business site as above is not a drone, and thus, it is difficult to conclude that the Defendant was operating the instant business site, the lower court is sufficiently acceptable to have acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning;

subsection (b) of this section.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. The appeal by the prosecutor of the conclusion is without merit and is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.