The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the defendant's family relationship was restored by receiving economic and emotional support from his/her duty to support his/her father and wife C for a considerable period of time.

Even though the court below can be seen, it is difficult to recognize that the defendant has restored the family relationship with the person who supported.

In light of the facts charged in this case, the court below erred by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. In light of the records, we examine the evidence of this case in detail in light of the records, and consider the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the court below, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, is insufficient to recognize that the defendant was reinstated after the non-support and family relationship was severed, and there is no other evidence to support this otherwise. Thus, the defendant illegally received the housing benefits and living benefits.

It is difficult to see.

In light of the facts charged of this case, it is just and acceptable to have judged the defendant not guilty, and there is no error of misconception of facts as alleged by the prosecutor.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

(1) AD in charge of investigation and management related to the guarantee of basic living security at the F community service center shall be present at the court of each trial as a witness and shall be able to have telephone conversations between a beneficiary and a person without support.

to the extent that the separated family relationship has been restored;

Although the defendant did not regard it as a duty to report the restoration of family relations, since he received money from his father C in the case of the defendant, he judged that the defendant is obligated to report the restoration of family relationship.

was stated.

However, the defendant's ancillary C did not attend the court as a witness and communicate for a long time with the defendant. After finding the frequency of operation of C around 2007, the defendant came to contact with the defendant.