The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the F’s statement with credibility of the grounds for appeal, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the part of the defendant, although the defendant could have arbitrarily concluded a guarantee agreement with the FF without the F’s consent.

2. Determination:

A. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) on July 2012, 2012, the Defendant: (b) from Denman C, the Defendant: (a) demanded the insurance policy of the Seoul Guarantee Insurance to provide oil from the same petroleum company that he operates in the name of D; (c) demanded the Seoul Guarantee Insurance to identify the guarantor to prepare for the exercise of the right to indemnity; (d) upon request from F; (c) upon request from F, the Defendant refused to obtain an authorized certificate under the name of F; and (d) had the intent to explain the said guarantee under the name of F; (c) on August 2, 2012, at the PC near Jung-gu, Jung-gu, Daejeon; (d) through the Internet site of the Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd.”); (c) demanded the employees of the damaged company to provide the same petroleum under the name of the Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd., Ltd. to provide the same guarantee insurance to the employees of the damaged company for the performance of the guaranteed bond.

However, in fact, the Defendant did not have obtained the F’s consent from the F to guarantee the above liability for reimbursement. In order to work together with F, the Defendant obtained an authorized certificate in the name of F and obtained an authorized certificate in the name of F. However, even if the Defendant was the said certification, the Defendant had the victimized Company guaranteed the liability to the same petroleum company in the above Ejun Oil station to KRW 35 million on the same day, thereby deceiving C by deceiving the victimized Company.