2. Evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and, in particular, the complainant F requested the defendant Eul to lend 700 million won equity capital to the defendant Eul to meet the standards for registration of a construction business. The defendant Eul lent the above 700 million won to the defendant Eul short term and became aware of the bond business operator who can issue his balance certificate. Accordingly, the defendant Eul borrowed 700 million won through the bond business operator D who is entrusted with the loan brokerage and borrowed 700 million won in a short term through the bond business operator D to issue the balance certificate to the complainant's name and received fees from the complainant and the complainant. As a result, the court below's determination that the defendant Eul was not guilty on the ground that the defendant Eul got a forged balance certificate (the defendant Eul received the balance certificate from H) and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone alone did not err in the misapprehension of facts without any reasonable doubt in light of the facts charged, such as misunderstanding of facts, and it cannot be found that the prosecutor acquitted the defendant and D et al. in the form of a false balance certificate.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. The prosecutor's appeal of conclusion is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit.