The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding the facts) by the Defendant’s deletion of the call-up file is the data collected by the G Private Institutes (hereinafter “private Institutes”) by paying gift certificates, etc. to the original students. The file for the call-out analysis is all the internal documents prepared by the instructors after analyzing the call-out test site, which are essential materials for the activities of the Private Institutes of this case. According to the lecturer’s reverse contract, etc., it is prohibited from arbitrarily correcting and deleting the data prepared by the Private Institutes of this case. The Defendant was authorized to delete the said data under the circumstances where the Plaintiff did not take over the duties of the successor upon receiving a notice of the recommendation office.

In full view of the facts that cannot be seen, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. In addition to the circumstances stated in detail by the lower court, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, (i) K middle school and I middle school did not conduct an interim penology assessment for the first grade students in the semester of 2015 (the trial record 64,68 pages), and (ii) among the deleted files, “three files of the first class test site for the first class test, and four files of the first class test site for the first class test,” and “one file of the first class test analysis” were conducted on February 2, 2015 by each of the above middle schools.

The fact that it is difficult to see the victim F and H made a statement to the effect that "the defendant issued a flag test site from the originals and ordered the tebrates to convert it into a PDF file, and then stored in the Pool "data for internal test" under the private teaching institute server (the trial record 129,130,144-150 pages), and the original file is converted into a PDF file of each of the flag test maps of this case, and thus, it is highly likely that the original file was stored in the Pool of the above "data for internal test", and even if the defendant's Pool was found to have been in the defendant's Pool.