The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding the facts) is that the court below found the defendant not guilty of the facts charged of this case even though the concrete microphone advertisedd for the purpose of sale constituted illegal wiretapping equipment.

2. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is a director of the company D, a company with the purpose of consulting, the purpose of selling convenience goods and manufacturing business, who was the representative of D’s telegraph, and was the representative of E, a company with D’s telegraph.

A person who intends to manufacture, import, sell, distribute, or use wiretapping equipment, or advertise for it, shall obtain authorization from the Director of the Department of Creative Science in the future, but from October 2010 to December 12, 2014, the Defendant posted a concrete microtype wiretapping equipment (hereinafter “facilities of this case”) in F for sale at KRW 1,195,00 for the purpose of selling it, without obtaining authorization from the Director of the Department of Creative Science.

3. We examine the judgment of the court below. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant sent a reply to the effect that in order to sell the facilities of this case, the defendant determined the items of the facilities of this case as " concrete (use for detecting sewage drainage pipes)" in the column of "detailed information on products" and posted "as for illegal use," the notice was made at the time of "as for illegal use" to sell the facilities of this case to the related agency's winning, and as for the future creative science department, it is difficult to determine whether the facilities of this case are wiretapping equipment. Accordingly, the defendant sent a reply to the effect that the facilities of this case are not deemed to fall under wiretapping equipment in accordance with the Communications Secret Protection Act, according to the above acknowledged facts, it is insufficient to view the facilities of this case as constituting wiretapping equipment under the Communications Information Protection Act, and otherwise, it is possible to use the telecommunications equipment of this case or conversations.