The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The managing body of the elevator facilities of the building E in Suwon-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si (hereinafter referred to as the "Appellant") shall be the defendant with the responsibility and authority to safely maintain the elevator according to a direct contract concluded between the owner of the above building, including the elevator, and the defendant is the defendant. However, on the premise that the Korea Electric Power Company, as the managing body of the elevator of this case, was granted the responsibility and authority to safely maintain the elevator at the same time, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the ground

2. Based on the circumstances stated in its reasoning, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the grounds that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor in the records of the instant case alone was insufficient to recognize that the Defendant was the managing body of the instant elevator on or around December 5, 2013, which is the time of the instant crime. In addition, in addition to the circumstances stated by the lower court and the fact that the conclusion of a contract under which the person lawfully entrusted by the owner of the elevator gives another person the responsibility and authority to safely maintain and manage the elevator cannot be deemed to violate the “restriction on maintenance subcontracting” prohibited by Article 11-5 of the Elevator Safety Control Act, the lower court is justified to have acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of the instant case, and it does not seem to be erroneous in the misapprehension

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is not accepted.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.