A. On December 14, 2005, Defendant A’s instant contract for service succession was actually concluded between Defendant and K (K, Co., Ltd. established jointly by Defendant B and Nonindicted M). At the time of entering into the contract, K’s joint representative director M and consented to the preparation of the instant contract for service succession, the copy of the instant contract for service succession is not a forged document, and the testimony made by the Defendant to the same effect is not a perjury.

B. As to the facts constituting the forgery of a private document as stated in Paragraph (5) of the judgment below in the case of Defendant B’s mistake or misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant obtained K’s joint representative director M of the case with respect to the preparation of a deceptive contract with V. Even if there was no explicit consent, even if M did not have any explicit consent, it can be deemed that there was M’s constructive consent, since the contract was comprehensively delegated by M of the right to prepare a deceptive contract, and even if it was not recognized that there was no disadvantage to K, the Defendant was authorized to prepare a deceptive contract, and even if it was not recognized that there was no constructive consent, it does not constitute the crime of forging a private document.

C. A prosecutor: (1) As to Defendant B, the lower court’s sentence (one year and six months of imprisonment) on the ground of unfair sentencing against Defendant A is too unfeasible and unfair: (2) Of the lower judgment on the grounds of misconception of facts as to the acquittal portion, the Defendant took full account of the following: (a) as to the forgery of private documents, the uttering of a falsified investigation document, and the attempted fraud portion of the lower judgment on the acquittal portion; (b) Defendant A brought a lawsuit claiming AC costs by using a copy of the instant service succession contract on the only month in which the Defendant returned to Korea; (c) a large amount of telephone conversations between the Defendant and the upper Defendant during that month; and (d) the Defendant said that the instant service succession contract was false to AT and AS.