The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error) is that the Defendant’s act of modifying the transaction details of E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) upon D’s request is contrary to the intention of the Japanese bank, which is the nominal holder of the passbook. Ultimately, the Defendant’s act of forging new probative value against the intent of the Japanese bank, which is the nominal holder of the above deposit passbook, without authority, by modifying the transaction details of the above deposit passbook, constitutes alteration of private documents. However, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the charge of mistake of facts.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is D from April 2001 to E’s Korean branch accounting staff, and the Defendant is a person who worked as a offline banking staff at the G branch of the Japanese bank located in Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si.

D around January 25, 2011, at the G branch of the above Japan bank, the defendant demanded that the defendant make an selective entry in the E's deposit passbook (Account Number:H).

D At the date of the head of the Tong, “20,00,00 D” and “0” were entered in the “2010,000,000” and “10,000,000” in the “amount column for the head of the Tong on the date of the head of the Tong, so that one’s embezzlement would have been discovered, the above part of the Defendant would be deleted and re-written. The Defendant modified the entry into the name of the head of the Tong as to “282,684,684” in the “the name of the head of the Tong” in the “20,117,10,646,” and “the name of the head of the Tong 182,684,” in the “the name of the head of the Tong Do 17,286,684,” in the “the name of the head of the Tong 1” and “the name of the head of the Tong 1”.

B. The judgment of the court below can be recognized based on the evidence duly adopted and examined.