The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the prosecutor's appeal is that the defendant's obligation to the Nonghyup Bank on the loan of this case was not D or E, but the defendant's obligation, despite the absence of the right to lease the loan of this case, and the defendant was paid the lease deposit by entering into a lease contract with I for the purpose of providing funds to solve the above loan of this case. Since the defendant's obligation was thought to be the defendant's obligation, there was no significant interest in the reasons for cancellation of the above right to lease of this case, and it was thought that the redevelopment can be done at any time upon the commencement of the redevelopment without using a large amount of ne in relation to the management, etc. of the above loan of this case, since the F did not raise any objection against the fact that the new lessee exists in the above loan of this case, or the fact that the defendant did not raise any question about the reasons for cancellation of the above right to lease of this case, the credibility of the statement of this case can not be easily rejected, and the defendant's resident registration number prepared in the lease contract between I and E by asking.

Even if it cannot be readily concluded that the Defendant was a telephone call to F, and rather, considering the fact that the Defendant was engaged in the above act in order to pretend that the Defendant had lawfully obtained the consent despite having failed to obtain the power of representation from F, etc. in the course of preparing a lease agreement, the Defendant may be deemed to have arbitrarily prepared the lease agreement while entering into a lease agreement with I even though the Defendant was not authorized to enter into the lease agreement or prepare the lease agreement of this case.

However, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and legal principles.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in this case is about April 2002.