The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

According to the evidence submitted by the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts), although the Defendant prepared a self-certification on March 26, 2008 (hereinafter “the instant confirmation document”) with the purport that he share 4,711 square meters of Gyeonggi-do D Forest land (hereinafter “instant land”) and 165 square meters of Gyeonggi-gun E-gun, Gyeonggi-gu, and seven lots (hereinafter “E land”), the Defendant is sufficiently recognized by making a false statement to the effect that C would have any criminal punishment imposed on C, with the intent of having C appear as a witness of the criminal case against C, and contrary to C’s memory for the purpose of undermining C, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “the said confirmation document was forged” was forged.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant not guilty on the ground that there was an error of mistake.

The summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) on October 2012, the Defendant: (b) prepared with C a statement of confirmation that C would jointly own ownership of “ApD” and “Apph E” land; (c) however, C filed a provisional attachment application against the Defendant for the said “ApD” with the intent of having C obtain criminal punishment against the Defendant, and (d) submitted evidentiary materials in the lawsuit for provisional attachment of real estate at [C] Government District Court 2012Ka 5029 [5029] by forging the said letter of confirmation.”

Formulate a written complaint to the effect that “....”

On October 24, 2012, the Defendant submitted the above complaint to a public official in the Seoul Central District Public Prosecutor's Office in Seocho-gu Seoul, Seoul, and filed a complaint with C.

At around 14:00 on May 8, 2015, the Defendant appeared and taken an oath as a witness of the case, such as forging a private document against the above court 2014 senior 4278 C, the Defendant was aware that C did not forge the “self-certification of March 26, 2008,” but was aware that C did not forge the “self-certification of March 26, 2008,” which was accused of the crime of forging a private document as described in paragraph (1).