2. Determination

A. On the grounds delineated below, the lower court determined that there was no proof of a crime regarding the fact that the Defendant made the back number plate of the Defendant’s vehicle to be examined.

Witness

E In the court of the court below, “A vehicle of a defendant parked in front of the space where the defendant visited him/her as a customer” was placed on the vehicle number plate of the defendant, attached a newspaper on the part of the defendant's vehicle number plate, and the defendant was detached from the vehicle before the defendant left the door, and did not notify the defendant of this fact.

“Inasmuch as testimony was made to the effect that “,” the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant made a registration number plate by attaching a newspaper on the vehicle, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

B. In light of the witness E’s legal statement of the court below, the police interrogation protocol against the defendant for the determination of the party’s deliberation cannot be used as evidence since the defendant denies its contents. In light of the witness E’s remaining evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the defendant voluntarily made the back number plate of the vehicle of the defendant to be examined or displayed it to E.

There is insufficient evidence to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the facts alleged by the prosecutor, and the prosecutor's assertion is not accepted.

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.