The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal that the Defendants agreed through a meeting of the representative can not cause a somewhat fall in accordance with the elements such as the nature, quantity, and relationship with the customer of the wastes on the basis of the base price for waste asbestos reclamation prices determined in the market.

In particular, even after the completion date of the collaborative act recognized by the court below, the monthly average reclamation price has increased again.

In light of these circumstances, the agreement on the standard price of the Defendants cannot be deemed to have been de facto reversed due to the fact that the reclamation price temporarily drops on the basis of the time around September 1, 2008 (in the case of the Defendant A Co., Ltd.) or November 1, 2009 (in the case of the Defendant), and since there was no other fact that the Defendants expressed their intent of withdrawal explicitly implicitly from the initial agreement, the collaborative act by the Defendants shall be deemed to have continued until September 27, 2013, which is a specific completion date, in the facts charged.

Nevertheless, Defendant A withdrawn from the above agreement on September 1, 2008; in the case of the remaining Defendants, around November 1, 2009, on the premise that the above agreement was de facto reversed and the collaborative act was terminated, Defendant A was acquitted on the part that the Defendants implemented the agreement as stated in the facts charged after the above period; and the judgment of the court below acquitted Defendant A on the grounds that the statute of limitations for the portion prior to each of the above periods expired, on the grounds that the five-year statute of limitations for the collaborative act has expired, it erred by

2. Determination

A. Based on the facts acknowledged in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the lower court: (a) in the case of Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Co., Ltd.”, the part concerning Defendant A’s “Co., Ltd.,” is omitted); and (b) the price level that Defendant A reduced on September 208, 2