The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of D’s statement on the grounds of appeal, the contents of the notice of dismissal notice, the currency and text contents submitted by the Defendant, etc., the judgment of the court below found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged of this case. There is an error of law due to omission of facts.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined as follows: (a) can be interpreted as the date of notification of dismissal, not on April 27, 2017, indicated in the notice of dismissal, which means the date of notification of dismissal, not on April 27, 2017, which can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court; (b) D was discharged from work on the same day, not on the one’s own, but on the other’s own; (c) around May 3, 2017, D continued absence without permission after receiving the notice of dismissal; and (d) around May 3, 2017, D continued to work for the company and completed the work for the principal by sending contact after leaving the office by May 27.

The phrase “A” message was sent, ④ D was genuine to the Labor Agency on the following day after receipt of the notice of dismissal, but D did not request the Defendant to pay the pre-employment allowance, and ⑤ as seen later, D indicated that it is the Defendant’s “Defendant”, but it is obvious that it is a clerical error in D’s “D” and thus written as above.

In light of the fact that E goes to work at the company on May 10, 2017, the notice of dismissal was not immediately dismissed, but the notice of dismissal was given to D, but it was difficult for D to accurately understand its meaning and to avoid the possibility of being true to the Labor Agency. The evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize the facts charged in the instant case.

In light of the above, innocence was pronounced.

(b)review each party;