The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles), the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, despite being aware of the fact that the Defendant directly received postage stamps applied for around January 4, 2017 and paid the purchase price of postage stamps normally, it can be acknowledged that the Defendant made a false petition against the correctional officer on January 3, 2017, when the purchase price of postage stamps was cancelled as of January 4, 2017 due to a computer system.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is currently being confined in the Changwon Prison, and was currently confined in the Giyang Detention House on March 18, 2017.

On March 18, 2017, the defendant prepared a false statement on the defendant's ward located in the above-mentioned detention center, and on the defendant's ward located in the smuggling branch office of the Changwon District Public Prosecutor's Office, the defendant prepared a false statement on the defendant's false statement on the

In the petition, “The fact on January 4, 2017 that the petitioner had not paid a postage stamp to the petitioner, the petitioner voluntarily withdrawn KRW 11,150 and embezzled it under the name of “postage stamp proceeds,” or the fact that the Defendant applied for postage stamps and received postage stamps, and there was no other fact that the respondent embezzled the amount equivalent to the postage stamp proceeds owned by the Defendant.”

Nevertheless, on March 21, 2017, the defendant requested the above-mentioned detention center to send the above-mentioned written petition, and around March 21, 2017, the above-mentioned written petition reaches the affiliated branch office of the Changwon District Prosecutors' Office located in the Dong-si.

As a result, the defendant was sentenced to a criminal punishment or disciplinary action against a non-name correctional officer.

B. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged based on the evidence duly adopted and examined, the lower court determined that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone did not constitute a revocation of the purchase of betting tickets on January 3, 2017 among the content of the petition, and on January 4, 2017.