The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor to the gist of the grounds for appeal, the court below acquitted the defendant on the facts charged in this case, although the defendant could fully recognize that he forged the power of attorney in the name of the complainant and exercised it. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case 1) Since around 2006, the Defendant, while operating a private document forgery company, operated a private corporation with a construction implementation from around 2006, was running a business to develop D Japan as a multi-family housing (hereinafter “instant business”). On November 8, 2012, the Defendant borrowed KRW 100 million from E as funds necessary for the instant business from E and set up a claim right (hereinafter “instant neighboring mortgage”) with regard to the maximum amount of KRW 30 million on the claim amount of KRW 24,44 square meters in the land for the instant business as collateral.

When the defendant needs to cancel the right to collateral security in the name of E in order to carry out the instant project, he was willing to forge the power of attorney in order to use the right to cancel the right without obtaining consent of E.

On May 15, 2013, the Defendant entered “E, Young-gu G, Young-gu, 8507-204,” in the column of delegation of power of attorney around May 15, 2013, and was kept in custody next to the name of E.

E’s seal was affixed.

For the purpose of uttering, the Defendant forged a letter of delegation in the name of E, a private document on rights and obligations.

2) On May 15, 2013, the Defendant filed an application for the cancellation of the instant right to collateral security at the Daegu District Court Port Branch Office’s registration office located in the port of port at issue on May 15, 2013, and exercised the said investigation document by issuing the forged power of attorney to the public official in charge of registration who is aware of the forgery of the power of attorney as if it had been duly constituted.

B. The lower court’s determination is that E’s investigation agency and E’s objection are admissible as evidence consistent with the facts charged in the instant case.