The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. With respect to the gist of the grounds for appeal ① fraud, in light of the following: (a) Defendant A revised a protocol of interrogation of a suspect at the time of investigation by the prosecution; (b) Defendant A made a concrete statement on the method of the crime; (c) the type and quantity of the article deducted by Defendant A’s own statement is specified in detail; and (d) the statement of the prisoner working together, details of disciplinary action against correctional officers; and (e) Defendant B paid excessive amount of custody, etc., the facts charged are sufficiently recognized.

(2) As to the crime of interference with the execution of public duties by fraudulent means, the provision of money and valuables to prisoners of an external truster is prohibited even without examining who deposits money in custody, and deposit money in custody in another person’s name to avoid this constitutes a deceptive scheme against a correctional officer.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. With respect to fraud, the lower court held that (i) Defendant A, at the place of work of Ansan prison E, did not cooperate or aid from others (the opposite head, members of the Ban, or correctional officer) and did not cut off the same quantity of products as indicated in the facts charged, alone for two consecutive years.

It is difficult to see in any way, and there is not sufficient objective data on the name, quantity, etc. of goods actually deducted, and ② At first, in collusion with F in collusion with F who was discharged while opposing the E workplace, the head of 15,000 per month was deducted.

Although the F was prosecuted but the F was rendered a decision that there was no suspicion due to insufficient evidence, the content of the deception was modified in the indictment. At least, there was no sufficient investigation about the quantity deducted through the opposite Chapter, and ③ Defendant A made a statement to the effect that Defendant A made a concrete statement in the prosecution investigation to recognize the fraud of this case by making a fraudulent method and made a statement to the effect that Defendant A made a statement to the effect that the fraud of this case was committed, but F made a decision on the opposite F and K did not have any suspicion.