The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The court below found the Defendants not guilty on the grounds that the Defendants’ act of replacing the filling machines in this case merely improved the performance of charging facilities and thus it cannot be seen as a new installation. Thus, the regulations on the replacement of filling machines in this case must comply with the Acts and subordinate statutes at the first time of installation, not the amended Acts and subordinate statutes. The key part of the charging facilities

Therefore, the replacement should be regarded as a new installation of charging facilities, and therefore, it should be regulated by the amended Act and subordinate statutes, so the judgment of the court below which acquitted the replacement is erroneous or erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

2. As found by the evidence duly adopted and examined at the court below, according to Article 2(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Safety Control and Business of Liquefied Petroleum Gas Act, “facilities to charge liquefied petroleum gas to containers or tanks fixed to automobiles” means facilities to charge liquefied petroleum gas, which are installed in a filling tank, and pumps and compresseds attached to a storage tank. The Defendants have replaced only the charging machine of the protocol gas manual container installed since 1983 by electronic means, but do not replace the pumps and compresseds attached to the storage tank (in the investigation record, Articles 48, 92-97). ② Such replacement is merely a change of the charging method, and it does not result in any change in the size or installation of the charging machine, so it is difficult to evaluate that it is the core replacement of the charging facility; ③ The Defendants filed a new administrative suit against the cancellation of the permission for container business due to the violation of facility standards with the amended Act and subordinate statutes.