The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) caused the instant accident due to the following: (a) the Defendants did not undergo a separate stability test, i.e., i., e., e., e., g., e., e., e., g., e., g., g., e., g., g., e., g., e., g., g.,

2. Determination

A. The prosecutor bears the burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial, and the conviction should be based on evidence with probative value sufficient to conclude that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt as to the defendant's guilt, it shall be determined in the interests of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do6110, Feb. 11, 2003). (b) According to the background leading up to the accident of this case and the evidence duly adopted at the court below and the trial court, the degree of two out of 4 water 12 out of the 12 water barll of the defendants launched from the bar line to the direction of the visitors on the bar line, and the victim who sees in the fireworks M was injured by a fireworks dust, and the defendants were released from the 2nd to 3rd to 2nd to 2nd to 3rd to 2nd to 31st to 321st to 200.

(c)

According to Article 2 subparag. 3 of the Act on the Safety Management of Firearms, Swords, Explosives, Etc. (amended by Act No. 14621, Mar. 21, 2017; hereinafter “Guns and Powders Act”), whether a separate stability test should be conducted for the division of combustion and water supply.