The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to all the evidence of the grounds for appeal, although the fact that Defendant A transferred and disposed of industrial sites owned by Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) prior to reporting on the completion of the establishment, etc. of a factory in violation of Article 39(1) of the Industrial Cluster Development and Factory Establishment Act (hereinafter “Industrial Cluster Act”), Defendant A was found to have been guilty of the facts charged against the Defendants due to erroneous determination of facts.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant Company produces home appliances, etc. in Dolsan City D, and Defendant A is the representative director of the Defendant Company.

Defendant

On January 28, 2015, the company purchased from the Korea Industrial Complex Corporation 8,123 square meters of D located in 1,280,780,200 square meters and owned it in the name of the defendant company.

1) An occupant company holding an industrial site, such as Defendant A’s industrial facilities zone, intends to dispose of the industrial site sold in lots before reporting the completion of the establishment of a factory, etc., the industrial site should be transferred to the management agency. Nevertheless, around July 23, 2015, the Defendant received KRW 4,150,400,000 from Dong-dong Co., Ltd. and received KRW 4,150,400,00 from Dong-dong Co., Ltd., and disposed of the industrial site at will without transferring it to the management agency before reporting the completion of the establishment of a factory.

B. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court’s judgment, namely, ① Article 39 of the former Industrial Cluster Act (amended by Act No. 9426, Feb. 6, 2009; hereinafter “former Industrial Cluster Act”).