Notwithstanding the recognition of the Defendant’s criminal act, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged.

2. The lower court, as stated in its reasoning, accepted the Defendant’s assertion and acquitted the Defendant on the facts charged.

In addition to the following circumstances recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court’s finding the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged on the grounds as stated in its reasoning is justifiable.

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

1) B stated that there was no entry that the Defendant had requested to send a certificate of the personal seal impression to the Defendant in relation to the apartment sale (the trial record 43,44 pages, evidence records 77 pages). However, in relation to the receipt of a certificate of the personal seal impression, in light of the content (Evidence No. 211, 212 pages) which the Defendant and B sent in text messages, the above statements are obviously contrary to the facts. B stated that the Defendant and the defense counsel filed a divorce lawsuit on July 2018 and the Defendant became aware of the fact that apartment was sold. However, on November 2017, B stated that the Defendant was aware of the fact that the apartment was disposed of by telephone around November 2017, but again stated that the Defendant was first known during the call with the Defendant on November 2016, and that it was not consistent at the time of sale (Evidence No. 46, 479, 179, 179, 179).

3) He, as referred to in B, stated in the police that “B, prior to the sale and purchase of an apartment, the Defendant was economically difficult or would have frequently sold the house” (Evidence No. 67 pages).