The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal lies in: (a) the Defendant, who is not the pen of the real estate lease contract, but the Defendant, despite being aware of it, has forged E; and (b) even if he knows that the lease termination date between the lessor and the lessee is March 2, 2014, the Defendant entered into a sublease contract with E even if the lease contract expires on March 2, 2013.

‘ ‘ has made false statements'.

Unlike this, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in mistake.

2. Determination

A. Around November 7, 2013, the summary of the charges is as follows: (a) at the public service center of the Chungcheongnam-gun, Seocheon-gun, Seocheon-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, the Defendant: (b) required C to enter into a contract for the lease of real estate in the name of Chungcheongnam-do, Seocheon-gu, Chungcheongnam-do; (c) “A, the above complainant, intentionally deceiving the complainant from the Defendant E at the time of concluding a contract for the “D” on August 21, 2013, intentionally, and forged the guidance contract; (d) submitted the above complaint to F in charge of receipt of the above police station; (e) at the investigation of the Seocheon Police Station and the statement to supplement the complaint at the economic team office; and (e) “B) forged the real estate lease contract in the name of Chungcheongnam-gun, Seocheon-gun, Seocheon-gun, Seocheon-gu, Seoul-do; and (e) delivered the leased site to G (hereinafter referred to as “D”) with the intention to use it.”

However, in fact, E did not have forged the real estate lease contract in the name of G, and the lease contract entered into between E and G on March 2, 2014.