The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Confession of misunderstanding the facts in this case, D, E, at the time of detection of the police, led to the conciliation of the news report opened by the defendant, but the court below reversed the statement in the court below.

After that, as a result of the investigation of perjury regarding the above legal statement, E led to the confession that the above legal statement was false.

The court below found the defendant not guilty on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, including the witness E’s testimony, was insufficient to recognize the facts charged, but the court below erred by misapprehending the facts.

B. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to whether Article 47 subparag. 1 and Article 19(1) of the Employment Security Act applies to the charged facts of this case, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. Examining the various evidences duly adopted and investigated by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of fact, it is not sufficient to recognize the fact that the defendant arranged D and E as described in the facts charged in this case, even if it is based on all the evidence submitted by the prosecutor at the court below as properly explained by the court below, and there is no additional evidence submitted at the court below.

(A) The prosecutor, at the lower court and the trial court, applied for the examination of E as a witness and tried to prove the facts charged, but the examination of witness was not conducted again as E departs from China). Therefore, the prosecutor’s assertion that there was a mistake of facts in the lower judgment that acquitted the Defendant is groundless.

B. The part pointed out by the prosecutor of the lower judgment regarding the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine is written in each part of the lower judgment.

However, the judgment of the court below is deemed not guilty on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize the facts charged, and it does not seem not seem not guilty on the ground that the part in each

Therefore, it is true.