2. The lower court determined that: (a) even if the Defendant did not directly verify the real vehicle, the Defendant prepared a “written confirmation of the vehicle lost” with the same content as that indicated in the facts charged; and (b) prepared a “written confirmation of vehicle acquisition” with the same content as that indicated in the facts charged and submitted it to the employee in charge of lending the victim E corporation; (c) it is deemed that such fact alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant conspireds with G and A to commit the instant crime; and (d)

3. The following circumstances revealed by the evidence submitted for the trial for the trial, namely, ① the defendant only argued that he prepared and submitted a false vehicle real estate certificate and a vehicle acquisition certificate for business convenience; ② Co-defendant A of the court below stated that the defendant was unaware of the vehicle condition or fraud loan despite recognizing the public bid relationship with Co-defendant G of the court below; ③ although the defendant stated in the investigative agency that he was aware of the fact that he was a fraudulent loan as in the facts charged, it is deemed that he was a statement based on the abstract side, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor is insufficient to acknowledge that the defendant committed a crime such as the crime described in the facts charged, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and it is difficult to see that there is an error of mistake of facts in the judgment of the court below as argued by the prosecutor.

The prosecutor's assertion is not accepted.

4. The Prosecutor’s appeal against conclusion is without merit and therefore, the Criminal Procedure Act.