The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal - Fact misunderstanding - According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the fact that the defendant - male and female juveniles are married to the "Del" operated by the defendant can be sufficiently recognized as charged.

Nevertheless, the court below sentenced the defendant not guilty, and there is an error of misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The summary of the facts charged in this case, which acquitted the defendant in the original trial, is as follows.

(a) No person shall engage in any business activity disturbing public morals, such as having juveniles lodge together on September 3, 2015, by committing any crime with new walls, on the grounds that he/she is allowed to stay together with male and female juveniles;

Nevertheless, on September 3, 2015, the Defendant provided guest rooms to E (n, 22 years of age) and juvenile F (n, 18 years of age), G (n, 18 years of age), and H (n, 13 years of age) in the “Durel” operated by the Defendant in Heak-gu, Seo-gu, Goju-gu, Cheongju-si.

(b) On September 3, 2015, no one shall engage in any business which disturbs public morals by allowing male and female juveniles to sleep together with other male and female juveniles.

Nevertheless, on September 3, 2015, the Defendant provided E (n, 22 years of age) and juvenile F (n, 18 years of age), G (n, 18 years of age), and H (n, 13 years of age) with the “Del” operated by the Defendant in Heak-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Cheongdong-gu. In addition, the Defendant provided 303 years of age with the said Tur.

3. The lower court’s determination is difficult to believe that part of the statement (F and G are not the difference between the Defendant and the previous one, but the Defendant’s photograph was presented at about seven months after the occurrence of the case and made a statement to confirm the offender) in the investigation agency of E, F, and G, which appears to be consistent with the fact that the Defendant had worked in a guest room to allow male and female juveniles to sleep at the time, in light of their legal statements, and there is no other evidence to prove it (for her mother employees employed by the Defendant at the time).