The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor as to the gist of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts), even if the facts charged in the instant case were fully convicted, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, and thereby acquitted the Defendant.

2. The court below's determination of not guilty of the facts charged of this case is just and acceptable, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted by the court below, considering the comparison of the evidence adopted by the court below and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted by the court below.

① While the Defendant, the other party to the contract, was affixed a seal on September 25, 1996, where the facts charged in the instant case were at issue (hereinafter “the instant contract”), there is an omission of the Defendant’s seal on the part of the other party to the contract. However, in preparing the contract, there is a question that it is difficult to reasonably explain the omission of only one of the other party to the contract. Considering that all of the content of the instant contract is a flive letter or tact, and there is no part written by the contracting party as well as a third party to the contract, and there is no part written by the third party to the contract, and there is no part written by the contracting party and there is no part written by the third party to the contract, the above question is more increased.

② As to the reasons why the seal of the Defendant is omitted in the instant contract, C refers to the fact that the Defendant was not in possession of the seal at the time of the preparation of the contract, but C refers to the fact that the party who entered into the contract is not in possession of the seal, and that even if not, it is possible to replace the seal with the signature or the seal if it is not in possession of the seal, and it is possible to replace it with the signature or the seal if it is not in possession of the seal. In light of the fact that C’s above statement is easy.