The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that E’s statement is not reliable on the grounds that E’s statement is abstract and it is not clear that E’s statement is less reliable on the grounds that the defendant sent Intimidation to the defendant. However, there is more than specifying the accurate date and time for the crime of this case which was punished one year prior to the fact inquiry, E is difficult to accurately understand the location of the defendant’s phone, E can be a statement that it is difficult for E to accurately understand the defendant’s improper relation, the defendant himself/herself has used E as an information source to control the massage procedure, and the defendant was also a relation that he/she frequently math, and the fact that he/she parked in the Busan Police Station for regulating a commercial sex business establishment on the date and time stated in the facts charged. However, according to the results of the fact inquiry, the court below determined that the fact that he/she parked in the Busan Police Agency’s parking lot to control the massage procedure does not objectively confirm on the date and time stated in the facts charged, but the duty to regulate the massage procedure is not recorded in the public register.

In light of the fact that it cannot be deemed that the Defendant did not always control, and that the control vehicle of the massage procedure is parked in the vicinity of the business establishment that does not park in the parking lot of the police station, but does not park absolutely in the parking lot of the police station, and that the Defendant was naturally aware of the type and number of the police officer who was engaged in the control of the massage procedure at the Busan Local Police Agency, which was a police officer in charge of the control of the massage procedure at the Busan Local Police Agency, and that the type and number of the female juvenile traffic control vehicle was naturally known, the facts charged against

2. The summary of the facts charged in this case is about December 1, 1998.