The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. On October 28, 2013, the Defendant: (a) sold H and I, a medical device that did not obtain permission from the Korea Food and Drug Safety Agency, to K in Indonesia on KRW 200 million; (b) had been sold to K indonesia through J, which was a model before considering the issue that J did not obtain the said medical device authority’s permission; and (c) had the written content of L and M’s license changed to J.

On February 20, 2014, the Defendant, without authority, had N, an employee of the Defendant enter “(H)” on the side of “Arash Operation L” in the product name column of the L/C license for the Defendant’s operation for the purpose of exercising the said G G sexual surgery. The Defendant changed two copies of the license for the manufacture of the medical device under the name of the Administrator of the Food and Drug Safety Agency, which is an official document, to enter “(I)” in the product name column of the rash Operation Operation, and exercised it by using the “A” on the side of “Arash Operation Ma” as stated in the product name column of the rash Operation Ma. In other words, if the Defendant completed the license for the manufacture of the medical device under the name of the Administrator of the Food and Drug Safety Agency, as seen above, the Defendant exercised it (hereinafter the “instant license”).

2. In the absence of the intention to use the instant permit as if the Defendant were the true permit, the Defendant has to capture the existing permit and have it as a file, and the reason for making the instant permit is not obtained by changing the previous permit to a editing program.

The English language language at the bottom of the instant permit does not fit the Defendant’s vindication that “The instant permit was issued to explain that the instant permit would be so doing in the future.”

On the other hand, the statement by the complainant is relatively consistent.

Comprehensively taking account of these circumstances and the evidence.