The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, although the defendant, as stated in the facts charged of this case, can be found to have issued a false tax invoice to E by registering as D's business operator.

2. The lower court determined that the Defendant did not have registered the business in the name of “D”, and that the Defendant did not know the representative F of “D” and did not issue a tax invoice to the said company, with respect to the Defendant’s change suit, the lower court explained in detail on various circumstances recognized in the relevant legal principles and records in 5 to 3 pages 15 of the judgment, and that the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone was not proven to the extent that the Defendant issued a tax invoice without supply of goods or services as the representative of “D.”

Examining the written judgment of the court below in comparison with the records, the judgment of the court below that deemed the lack of evidence to prove the facts charged of this case is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts as alleged by the prosecutor. Thus, the prosecutor's allegation of mistake of facts is rejected

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.