The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence presented by the prosecutor as to the grounds of appeal, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, even though the defendant could have acknowledged the fact that he had a new liability in front of the door of the house C at the time of the instant case.

2. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the defendant, at the time of the instant case, went to his house located in the fifth apartment floor in the apartment house at the time of the instant case, and the defendant did not provide a consistent reasonable explanation as to the reason and circumstances between the parties and the defendant, etc. as above, and the fact that the defendant paid KRW 100,000 to C at the time of the investigation by the investigative agency is recognized.

However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the records of the instant case, the fact of recognition alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant carried out a person who was aware of the obligation at the time of the instant case, to the extent that all reasonable doubts are excluded, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

① The Defendant continuously asserted from the investigative agency to this court that “at the time of the instant case, the Defendant did not have any liability in the box.”

② At the time when the Defendant agreed with C, the Defendant told C to the effect that “The Defendant did not have any obligation, but did not have any obligation.”

③ At the time of the instant case, there is no evidence to directly prove that the Defendant, as mentioned above, was suffering from liability within the party’s alternative compensation.

Therefore, the other prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

3. The Prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.