Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the charged facts of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial against the board of directors is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction shall be based on the evidence with probative value sufficient to cause a judge to believe that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is suspicion of guilt against the defendant, it shall be determined in the interests of the defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 94Do3309 delivered on April 12, 1996). The court below found the defendant not guilty of the facts charged of this case on the ground that it is difficult to view the synthetic slids of this case exported by the defendants as materials because they were not produced in D in detail while explaining the grounds for the judgment in detail.

In light of the records, the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below was proved to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt that the corporation D produced the synthetic flag boiler of this case only based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case is not erroneous as alleged by the prosecutor.

3. If so, the Prosecutor’s appeal against the Defendants is without merit, and all of them are dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.