The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor’s summary of the grounds for appeal, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged of this case, although the Defendant was found to have stolen the claim, etc. for compensation as stated in the facts charged in the instant case.

2. Determination

A. The prosecutor amended the indictment (in addition to the facts charged in the preliminary indictment) stated that the previous facts charged were the primary facts charged, and that the name of the conjunctive crime is "Interference with business", "Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act" as the preliminary applicable provisions, and below as the preliminary facts charged:

2.(c)

1) An application for the amendment of a bill of indictment was filed to add the facts charged as stated in paragraph (1) and this court permitted it to change the subject of the judgment. Nevertheless, the prosecutor's assertion of mistake and misapprehension of the legal principles as to the primary facts charged is still subject to the judgment of this court. However, the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles as to the primary facts charged are judged in order of the ancillary facts added in the trial. (B) The prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles as to the primary facts charged are judged in the first instance.

(See Supreme Court Decision 93Do328 delivered on April 13, 1993, Supreme Court Decision 92Do280 delivered on May 12, 1992, and Supreme Court Decision 89Do1679 delivered on November 28, 198, etc.) 2 specific judgments are legitimate by the court below.