The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal (the factual error) is that the Defendant issued to C to have C cancel the registration of creation of a right to collateral security (hereinafter “I”) and issued to C with C to cancel the registration of establishment of a right to collateral security (hereinafter “the instant payment guarantee”) is a company that has no real entity I and the instant payment guarantee also has been falsely prepared. Thus, even if C exercises the guarantee claim against I, it cannot be paid the amount indicated in the relevant payment guarantee even if C exercises the guarantee claim against I, it is not possible to receive the amount indicated in the said payment guarantee. ① The Defendant’s payment guarantee was paid to K for the purpose of issuing the instant payment guarantee document: (a) the Defendant did not confirm the source of KRW 63 million (a par value of KRW 7 million, cash of KRW 53 million). ② Even if the Defendant acquired the above KRW 63 million with the Defendant’s false payment guarantee certificate as security, the lower court’s payment guarantee is not deemed to have been issued with the Defendant’s false payment guarantee certificate.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined that the part of C’s investigation agency and legal statement that deemed that the Defendant knew of the falsity of the payment guarantee certificate from the Defendant is “re-specialized statement” and, as long as the Defendant did not agree to the admissibility of evidence, Article 310-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act.