The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant, at the time of preparing the instant transaction agreement, informed F of the fact that he prepared a new transaction agreement, or obtained F’s consent to prepare a new transaction agreement from F, and the Defendant knew or appears to have known of F’s consent in the process of sealing the seal of F in the instant transaction agreement, or at least dolusent negligence, and F, as a matter of course, agreed to postpone the due date for payment of the balance and to enter into a new transaction agreement as the buyer’s agent and affix his seal thereto.

It is also difficult to see it.

Nevertheless, the lower court rendered a not-guilty verdict on the facts charged of this case. The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. In a criminal trial, the recognition of criminal facts must be based on strict evidence with probative value, which makes a judge not to have any reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof does not sufficiently reach the extent to have the aforementioned conviction, it should be determined in the interests of the defendant even if there is suspicion of guilt, such as the defendant’s assertion or defense contradictory or uncomfortable dismissal, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1487, Apr. 28, 201). (b) The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., ① an authorized intermediary S who actually prepared the instant sales contract, by call to Q Q S, bears the seal affixed to the extended contract, and bears no seal, and the defendant bears part in the first sale contract and the first sale contract in this case.