The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal is sufficient to mislead the general public as a true promissory note notarial deed, and G is consistently forged from an investigative agency to the original trial court to the original trial, and the facts charged in the instant case that the Defendant forged and exercised the instant notarial deed are sufficiently proven.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

2. The facts charged in this case

A. On September 31, 2011, the Defendant forged public documents, stating that a notary public, who was in possession of the same or lower village of Pyeongtaek-dong, was in violation of the upper part of the notarial deed No. 735 of the notarial deed No. 735 of the notarial deed No. 2010, “2011” and affixed a seal to E, and then affixed a seal to E, as the seal attached to the notarial deed No. 13 million won issued to G as of August 31, 2010, stating that he was in violation of the upper part of the notarial deed No. 735 of the notarial deed No. 735 of the notarial deed, and that he was in violation of the notarial deed No. 2010,000,000,000 won as the seal attached to G with the notarial deed No. 300,000,000,000,000,000 won.