The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, the court below acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case by misunderstanding the facts and thereby adversely 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, it is difficult to conclude that the construction work of this case constitutes a specialized construction work not general construction work but general construction work, solely based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor on the grounds stated in its reasoning,

Even if it is difficult to recognize the intent to submit a false certificate of completedness to the defendant.

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) According to a factual reply to the fact-finding on the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, the landscaping construction works among apartment construction works are being implemented by a comprehensive construction business entity that requires comprehensive planning, management, and coordination; however, part or a specialized construction business entity with respect to the field of general construction works or a specialized field; the construction business entity that has registered a comprehensive construction business (construction business) grants a contract for construction works that require complex and comprehensive planning, management, and coordination, which may be recognized as the performance of landscaping construction works if the project owner grants a contract for construction works that require complex and comprehensive planning, management, and coordination.

② G that issued a certificate of achievements of this case to E employee is present at the court of original instance as a witness and “D general construction works for Defendant’s operation.”