The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding the facts), the J, a security guard of the instant apartment, attached a notice on February 27, 2016 on the above apartment 208 elevator bulletin board, and the Defendant removed the notice notice attached on the elevator bulletin board on the following day. The notice notice stating that the security guard’s notice of “the notice of violation of the regulations on election management” was posted on the bulletin board of February 27, 2016, which until February 26, 2016, does not have any reason to attach the notice on February 27, 2016. As such, the notice notice posted on the bulletin board of the instant elevator on February 27, 2016 by the JJ is from February 27, 2016 to the same year.

3. Until April 3, 200, the "Public Notice of the Election of Representatives by Three Offices" is sufficient to recognize that the defendant removed the "Public Notice of the Election of Representatives by Three Offices" as of the following day.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone lacks to acknowledge that the notice of removal was “the notice of the election of the representative for each third building” and that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below in light of the records, the court below's finding the defendant not guilty of the facts charged of this case on the grounds as stated in its reasoning is just (On the other hand, the court below stated from the court of the first instance that on February 27, 2016, the defendant was not aware of what he attached on the elevator bulletin board of the next day, what the public notice was removed from the elevator bulletin board of the next day, and it is insufficient to recognize the facts charged as a statement at the court of the court of the first instance that the court attached a public notice in accordance with the general process of business affairs.

The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts as pointed out by the prosecutor, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

subsection (b) of this section.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is without merit, and thus, pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.