The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Regarding violation of the Construction Technology Management Act and violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, the Mono-day guide wheeler of this case constitutes the core part of rolling stock in structure.

Nevertheless, the court below rendered a not guilty verdict on this part of the facts charged on the ground that it does not constitute an essential part in the structure of an information wheels, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding legal principles.

B. On the part of obstructing the performance of the official duties in a deceptive scheme, a public official in charge of NM verified the site on the basis of the completion inspection report prepared by Defendant B, etc. with NF employees, which constitutes a minimum investigation that can be conducted at the NM market.

Therefore, although Defendant B and D’s act constitutes an act that interferes with the legitimate performance of duties concerning the N’s completion inspection and the public announcement of the completion of the construction of urban planning facilities as a deceptive scheme, the lower court acquitted Defendant B and D of this part of the charges on the ground that Defendant B and D’s act does not constitute an interference with the performance of official duties through deceptive means on the ground that the N’s insufficient examination was conducted. The lower court

2. Determination as to a violation of the Construction Technology Management Act and the Framework Act on the Construction Industry

A. Summary of the facts charged 1) Defendant C Co., Ltd. in violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry of Defendant D and Defendant C Co., Ltd. is a contractor at the site of the instant Monoday Corporation. Defendant D is obligated to faithfully design and execute construction works in compliance with the terms and conditions of the contract for construction works, the standards for construction works, standard specifications, specialized specifications, etc. determined by the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, etc.

Nevertheless, in the course of construction, the Defendants’ “insufficient construction of the foundation and angle”, “a difference between the center and the center of each side of the school”, and “a difference between the school and the school”.