The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

A. The Defendant asserted at an investigative agency that each written waiver of the instant performance was forged using the blank 2 affixed with the Defendant’s seal, and reversed the Defendant’s assertion that C arbitrarily affixed the seal affixed to C and forged it after the prosecution.

B. C, from the investigative agency to the court, the Defendant affixed his/her seal on each of the waivers of the instant implementation.

was stated.

Although C’s statement as to the company sitting in the process of preparing a written rejection of performance is not consistent, it is difficult to view C’s statement as having no credibility on the ground that this case occurred in 2013 and C was under circumstances to make it difficult for C to properly verify relevant materials.

(c)

F also affixed the Defendant’s seal on each written waiver of the instant implementation from an investigative agency to the court.

was stated.

F also it is difficult to memory daily participants in the process of making a written rejection of performance.

F. F. F. F., from the standpoint of the person who takes over the construction site, confirmed whether the defendant waives the performance directly.

It is reasonable to view it.

(d)

According to the statements of the National Institute of Scientific Investigation and appraiser H, the defendant's assertion is not reliable, since it is acknowledged that the facts attached to the defendant's name of each written waiver of performance are affixed.

2. In light of the circumstances stated in its reasoning, the lower court cannot exclude the possibility that the Defendant’s accusation of the instant case was true, and it is difficult to recognize that the Defendant lodged a false accusation against C without any reasonable doubt.

In view of the facts charged, the lower court acquitted the Defendant.

The evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in light of the circumstances stated in the court below.