The appeal by the prosecutor is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (defluence) consistently states that the Defendant engaged in a dance institute business in around 2012, and that the accused stated that the Defendant “K was also engaged in a dance institute business in light of facilities, atmosphere, etc. such as the end of the school operated by the Defendant, the floor, lighting, sound facilities, etc.” Therefore, the Defendant is recognized to have operated a dance institute business during the period specified in the facts charged without reporting to the competent authorities.

2. The lower court determined that: (a) in light of the fact that (b) public officials G went to a field investigation at the lower court’s court court’s “F civil petition several times; (c) did not discover the appearance of dancing school after March 2012; (d) E, H, I, and J, which were proposed by F, only have been engaged in the Defendant’s private teaching institute before 2012; (c) there was no fact that the Defendant had lessons at the Defendant’s private teaching institute after March 2012; (d) the private teaching institute operated by the Defendant was designated as a job training institute in the special field from the Office of Education of the Daejeon Daejeon Metropolitan City, Daejeon; and (e) it was difficult to recognize that the Defendant was not guilty of the facts charged by the Defendant, based on the fact that it was difficult for the Prosecutor to have made a statement to the effect that there was an investigative agency, such as ice dance institute, and the rest of the facts charged by the Defendant, which was presented from March 21, 2012.”