The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) did not properly verify the process of preparing the real estate sale and purchase contract (hereinafter “the instant unit contract”) made by the Dworkd, and the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged solely on the ground that the Defendant was aware of the fact that he/she had been convicted of the instant Article of the E document. Thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the grounds that the process of preparing the Dworkd contract was not examined, and by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the criminal intent of the Defendant.

2. In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below in light of the circumstances revealed by the court below in detail, the defendant was aware that the warranty contract of this case was not forged at the time of the complaint.

It is difficult to see it.

Therefore, it is difficult to recognize the defendant's intention to commit an innocent crime.

Therefore, the conclusion of the court below that acquitted the charged facts of this case is just, and there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles.

① Around January 25, 2016, E filed a complaint with the Defendant under the terms of “the Defendant unilaterally prepared a real estate transaction contract for the buyer, even though he/she is a broker for a real estate exchange contract (hereinafter “the instant contract”) and inflicted property damage on the Defendant.” On March 19, 2016 and March 24, 2016, the police investigation stated that the instant contract was not tear, and that the original was kept in custody, and submitted by facsimile a real estate transaction contract with the police on March 28, 2016.

(2) On March 30, 2016, the Defendant obtained a real estate transaction contract submitted by E to an investigative agency by facsimile and compared it with a copy of the instant contract he/she had kept in custody, and the entries of the said contract are different from each other.