The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal, the court below found the defendant guilty of the charges that the defendant was involved in the false preparation and exercise of the I's purchase weapons systems (type 4 test and evaluation of the I's weapons systems) (ROV, SS, IF, and Hms) (hereinafter "the documents of this case") by exercising pressure to subordinate persons, such as AO and F, upon receiving a request from AI to be loaded in I (I, I, I, I, and I, hereinafter "I"). However, the court below found the defendant guilty of the charges that the defendant participated in the false preparation and exercise of the I's purchase weapons systems (Class 4) (hereinafter "the documents of this case").

2. Facts charged and summary of the judgment of the court below

A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant was a person holding office 27th H from March 20, 208 to March 19, 2010. The Defendant, at the office H of the Navy headquarters around October 15, 2009, proposed that the instant equipment supplied by the Navy headquarters YB YB Chief NA as performance equipment was being developed, but the Defendant was well aware that there was no performance verification data, and that the test and evaluation was conducted normally in accordance with the report that there was no performance verification data for test and evaluation, and it was well known that the Defendant had been aware that the Defendant had been holding office 27th H from March 208 to March 19, 201. The Defendant prepared the instant document for approval as if the instant equipment had been prepared with AFJ and sent it to the Defense Administration on the basis of the normally submitted performance verification data, and each of the instant documents was prepared and sent to the AFJ on the basis of each of the instant documents submitted to the AF and each of the instant documents.

B. The lower court’s judgment on the preparation and event of the instant written approval is solely based on the evidence presented by the prosecutor, based on the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence.