The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the gist of the grounds for appeal recognized that the Defendant, other than an attorney-at-law, was in charge of legal affairs by concluding a service contract including “request for examination prior to notification” and “administrative appeal,” but the lower court was the maximum amount of service costs under

Even if the service cost includes the cost of legal affairs, such as “request for review prior to notification and administrative appeal,” the court below erred by misapprehending the facts.

2. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor on the grounds stated in the part of the lower judgment regarding “2. Determination” alone, even if the service cost under the instant service contract was a large amount, it is difficult to view that the service cost included the cost for legal affairs, such as “request for examination before notification and administrative appeal,” and there is no other evidence to

In light of the arguments and records of this case, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law of misunderstanding of facts alleged by the prosecutor.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.