The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendants of the establishment and operation of a private teaching institute without being registered with the superintendent of education, is erroneous in the misconception of facts.

2. The lower court rendered a not guilty verdict against the Defendant on the grounds that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone, based on the facts and circumstances stated in its holding, cannot be deemed as proven beyond reasonable doubt.

In the circumstances indicated by the lower court, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the trial court (i.e., public officials G who directed and inspected the “D” operated by the Defendants around August 6, 2019 are present at the trial as a witness, and 10 or more teaching persons for adults during the same hours. However, the Defendants stated that the Defendants “10 or more teaching persons during the same hours,” and that they prepared the “No registered private teaching institute facility inspection table (Evidence 5 pages), but on the other hand, they stated that the Defendants could not know whether they were aware of the intent of questioning differently; (ii) the Defendants stated “10-15 lecture students status” column of the “No registered private teaching institute facility inspection table; (iii) it is difficult to understand that the above “the number of lecture students during the same time” was “the maximum number of lecture students during the same period; and (iv) the Defendants appears to have been “the maximum number of lecture students during the same curriculum” or “360-hour lecture hours during the same period.”