The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles) where E actually manages the mechanical owner of the instant case by means of employment or lease from F, the former representative of the C Management Group, it constitutes an aggregate building consisting of not less than 10 sectional owners, which constitutes “a mechanical parking lot manager, etc.” under the Parking Lot Act, and as such, the Defendant, the managing director, constitutes an aggregate building consisting of not less than 10 sectional owners, and thus, the Defendant, who is the managing director, is liable for the charge of management of D, who did not receive “a mechanical parking lot manager education

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles and misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant is a person who serves as a manager of C in Seo-gu, Busan.

In the parking lot of the above building, there are mechanical parking lots where 56 vehicles can park.

When at least 20 mechanical parking lots are installed in the number of motor vehicles, the manager of a mechanical parking lot, etc. shall, for the safety of parking lot users, appoint a person who has received education for mechanical parking lot managers (four-hour), conducted by the Korea Transportation Safety Authority established pursuant to the Korea Transportation Safety Authority Act, as a mechanical parking lot manager.

Nevertheless, from April 10, 2017 to April 12, 2017, the Defendant placed D (39 years, south) not receiving education on mechanical parking lot administrators conducted by the Korea Transportation Safety Authority as mechanical parking lot managers.

B. On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the instant charges on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize the Defendant as the manager of the instant mechanical parking lot, while there is no other evidence, in light of the witness E’s legal statement and evidence submitted by the Defendant, the manager of the said mechanical parking lot appears to be F.

(c)

The court below held that the above deliberation was conducted.