The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

(In light of the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, the Defendant was aware that C et al. filed a claim for long-term care benefits in a false manner and signed a false record on the record of the provision of long-term care benefits, thereby contributing to the crime of fraud. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2. The prosecutor changed the indictment to the indictment as the primary charge in the trial. The name of the crime is "Fraud assistance, violation of the Act on Long-Term Care Insurance for the Aged," Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 67(2)2 of the Act on Long-Term Care Insurance for the Aged, Articles 32(1) and 40 of the Criminal Act, Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the following facts charged:

3.2

(1) As stated in Paragraph (1), each additional application for changes in indictment was filed, and this Court permitted this and changed the subject of the judgment.

However, since the prosecutor's argument of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles on the primary facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, the prosecutor's argument of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles on the primary facts is examined in order to judge the primary facts.

3. Determination

A. In full view of the facts and circumstances revealed through the evidence duly adopted and examined, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the instant facts charged on the ground that it is difficult to recognize that the Defendant had functional control over the instant crime on the sole basis of the evidence presented by the prosecutor.

Examining the above judgment of the court below in comparison with the records, the judgment of the court below is just, and since the prosecutor did not submit new evidence in the trial, the prosecutor pointed out in the judgment of the court below.