The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

In short, with respect to the portion on which the first instance court acquitted the Defendant, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts against the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles on the crime of occupational breach of trust, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

However, considering the process of the court below's examination of the selection of evidence and the process of fact-finding, the prosecutor rejected each evidence cited as evidence of guilt in the paper of the case, and the prosecutor did not prove any crime as to the facts charged (the portion that pronounced innocence) and thereby not guilty against the Defendants is just in the measures of maintaining the judgment of the court of first instance which sentenced the Defendants not guilty. There is no error of misconception of facts in violation of the rules of evidence or in misunderstanding of the legal principles of breach of trust.

The following grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the original judgment, the defendant 1 is the chief of the High-Pressure Gas Security Association located in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government ( Address omitted), the chief of the above Association, and the defendant 3 served as the chief of the above Association's assistant inspector and the chief of the above Association's office. The defendant 1 conspired with the above Association's inspector to inspect low-tension, vinyl, vinyl and bovine spongiforms which are produced in Korea, for liquefied petroleum gas produced in the above Association's first place and the assistant inspector's office. On April 17, 1976, the above company's seal strength test, heating test, internal milk test, and low-ion force test, which are the company's products, was conducted without passing the above 16th test's consent, and the above test was conducted without passing the above 4th test's consent, and thus, the defendant 4th test and the above test were not conducted without passing the above 16th test.

However, according to Article 34 of the High-Pressure Gas Safety Control Act, "the inspector or a person arranging the above inspection by improper means under Articles 13, 16, and 18." The records stipulate that the high-pressure gas security association to which the defendants belong shall punish "the inspector or the person mediating the above inspection." Since there are no facilities to conduct a seal strength test, heating test, internal oil test, and low temperature test, it can be found that the applicant for inspection of the above vinyl 4 has received a grade mark from an authorized business establishment through the above examination and conducted the remaining affairs to determine whether the applicant has passed the above examination through a hydrover 8 test, hydrover 1, and that the above product was not found to have passed the examination of the above processed product without any specific reason. In such a case, the applicant for the above inspection was not found to have passed the examination of the above product, and the defendants were not found to have passed the examination of the above product, and the above product was not found to have been found to have passed the examination of the applicant's samples by submitting it to the examination report.

Therefore, among the original judgment, the conviction portion against the Defendants is reversed, and that part is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Criminal Court. The Prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed as without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)