Therefore, the defendant, in the absence of the right to make a proxy form in the name of C with respect to the change of the name of the restaurant owner, has prepared a proxy form in the name of the Dong, and the judgment of the court below is erroneous in misconception of facts.

2. Based on the following circumstances, the lower court rendered a judgment on the grounds that it is difficult to view that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was sufficiently proven to the extent that the facts charged in the instant case could not have any reasonable doubt, and that there is no evidence to prove otherwise, thereby acquitted the Defendant pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground

① It is reasonable to see that the cafeteria was in the name of only C, and that the actual owner is the defendant, and the disposition authority also exists in the name of the defendant.

② The Defendant’s seal imprint certificate and seal imprint certificate used by C when preparing a power of attorney are left to K as his father, and the Defendant appears to have used them after having clarified the purpose of use and obtaining them from K.

③ At the court of the court below, C stated to the effect that “The Defendant is the actual owner of a D cafeteria, and that if he entrusts K with the seal imprint and the seal imprint certificate, he comprehensively delegated the use thereof.”

On the other hand, the witness C is present in the trial as a witness and lends his name.