The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal D (the deceased’s death on March 26, 2015; hereinafter “the Deceased”) was diagnosed to the effect that around October 2012, there was an obstacle to the boom functions in charge of the determination and recognition function of “the suspicion of disability”, and thus, the deceased could have responded to a simple question made by the deceased at the time of his/her health condition.

Even if a promissory note was prepared, and there was the ability to determine whether the preparation of a document for the creation of a collateral security, and for the transfer of ownership.

It is difficult to readily conclude.

The Defendant, “The Deceased’s family members are 200 million won, so the Defendant would like to give 300 million won to her mother.

was done.

Therefore, on April 4, 2012, the deceased asserted that the promissory note was prepared with KRW 300 million according to the deceased’s will and prepared a written agreement for the establishment of the right to collateral security, etc., and the lower court accepted the Defendant’s vindication. The deceased had expressed his wish to give KRW 300 million to her mother’s child.

Even if the defendant establishes a collateral security and makes a provisional registration under the name of the defendant, it is beyond the purpose of delegation by the deceased.

After obtaining consent from the Defendant to the effect that the deceased who is well aware of his ability and prepare an application, etc. for registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security in his/her name under his/her mother’s name, the Defendant entered the

In relation to the forgery of a new bank transaction document in the name of the deceased, the lower court is likely to regard it as an act to avoid gift tax as the Defendant’s assertion, so it is difficult to eliminate the possibility that the Defendant obtained permission from the deceased

In the judgment of the deceased in 2014, the deceased was unable to speak, so it is very low that the defendant can explain the above purport to the deceased and obtain permission.

Even so, the court below acquitted the defendant that the defendant had the ability to make judgment at the time of committing the crime, and the preparation, etc. of the document by the defendant was conducted with the consent of the deceased.