The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Even if the Defendant was found to have committed the instant crime in full view of the following circumstances, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and acquitted the Defendant.

The Defendant, from the investigative agency to the court below, prepared a monthly rent contract for apartments, without being in accordance with B, which he denies.

Confession made a statement that led to the crime.

B, the statements made by certified intermediaries D and lessorF constitute evidence of reinforcement of the confession of the accused.

B was a person who was not in the original part of himself.

In full view of the fact that the Defendant stated, and the Defendant signed and sealed the contract without holding B’s painting, it is unclear whether the Defendant had the right of representation in daily home affairs regarding the instant lease agreement.

2. The summary of the facts charged is the husband B.

On February 14, 2014, the Defendant prepared a monthly rental contract for an apartment of KRW 10,000,000,000,000 from March 15, 2014 to March 14, 2016 with respect to “E” operated by D, located in the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu building 111, and with respect to F and Nowon-gu apartment of KRW 102,601,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00

Accordingly, for the purpose of exercising, the Defendant forged the monthly rent contract of apartment in the name of B, a private document on rights and obligations.

3. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, the lower court determined that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone proves that the Defendant forged the monthly rent contract under the name B without authority.

It is difficult to see that the Defendant was not guilty on the ground that the Defendant appears to have been expressly or implicitly delegated the right to conclude a lease agreement from B.

1) The Defendant is both the principal and his spouse B and minor.