In addition, unlike the defendant's statement, parts other than the B's signature of the labor contract of this case are judged to have been prepared by the defendant, and the reliability of the B's assertion is high as various circumstances comply with the argument B.

Nevertheless, the court below found the facts charged guilty by misunderstanding the facts.

2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined in the lower court’s judgment, the lower court was justifiable to have rendered a not-guilty verdict on the facts charged on the grounds as indicated in its holding and did not err by misapprehending the facts.

The prosecutor's assertion of mistake is difficult to accept.

The Defendant consistently denied the facts charged in the prosecution and the court of original instance.

(Evidence Records 187 pages, Trial Records 36 pages). The Defendant, at the prosecution, made a relatively concrete statement on the background or process during which the instant employment contract was prepared with B.

(Evidence Records 183 to 186 pages). (b)

Unlike the prosecutor’s assertion, the copy of the instant labor contract consists of two pages, and there is no simple delivery between the two pages, and the right upper part of the first Chapter bears a part of the seal seen as a simple seal, but the second Chapter does not lead to a simple seal.” Unlike the prosecutor’s assertion, the copy of the instant labor contract is signed on the back (Evidence Nos. 104) and the second chapter (L No. 105 pages) and the second chapter (L No. 105 pages).

C. D. which the defendant requested and submitted to the investigative agency.