The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and legal principles.

2. The lower court, based on its stated reasoning, stated Defendant B as “G agency B” in the instant contract without obtaining delegation of the power of representation from G, and the remaining Defendants were aware of such fact.

Even if the Defendants were to have had the objective or intent to exercise, which is a subjective constituent element of the crime of preparing private documents for qualification.

It is difficult to see

Based on the judgment, all the defendants were acquitted.

The judgment below

C. The following circumstances revealed by the record, i.e., the preparation of the instant contract by Defendant B, indicating the qualification of the agent of G, in itself, has a direct interest in, or a direct damage to, the complainant.

In light of the fact that there is no evidence to see, in fact, the complainant filed a lawsuit seeking compensation for damages on the ground that the complainant suffered damages of KRW 250 million in total, the down payment and the estimated amount of damages by preparing the contract in this case with the Defendant B’s power of representation granted from the Defendant B or without ratification, but the above lawsuit has become final and conclusive as the complainant’s loss, etc., the court below’s determination is just and acceptable, and there is an error of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles as argued by the Prosecutor.

subsection (b) of this section.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 369 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.