The defendant was not in a private village but in a normal workplace for eight years, when the defendant was in a private village in a hospital.

In full view of these circumstances, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged, and thereby acquitted the Defendant, even though the Defendant was fully aware of the facts charged that the Defendant avoided military service by deception.

2. According to the records, if the defendant had been living in the workplace between several years, and if the defendant was living in the family of the defendant, the person who stated the defendant's increase of the defendant's capital by accompanying the hospital is deemed not to have been in actual social relationship, and there is doubt as to whether the defendant has evaded his military service by fraudulent means.

However, the doctor E who diagnosed the defendant as a mental fission, testified in the original trial in conformity with the relevant evidence, such as medical records, etc.

In addition, in full view of the circumstances indicated by the court below based on the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below, namely, the Defendant’s medical records, the symptoms at the time of diagnosis, and the Defendant’s medical treatment even after exemption from the military, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone sufficient proof of the facts charged in the instant case that the Defendant avoided military service by deceit was sufficiently proven without reasonable doubt

It is insufficient to view.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant is just and acceptable.

We do not accept the prosecutor's assertion of mistake.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.