The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the fact-finding) consistently led to the confession of the facts charged in this case after the prosecutor's investigation to the original court. Despite the fact that the complainant was staying in the Republic of Korea at the time of the instant case, the defendant made a false statement to the staff in charge of E (Korea Credit Guarantee Fund) that he had taken a business trip to the United States, E did not confirm whether the complainant was the person in charge of E (Korea Credit Guarantee Fund), E did not directly sign on the part of the instant joint and several sureties, the defendant did not have any reason to impose criminal liability in the course of false confession, and the fact-finding inquiry report by the written expert witness that the possibility that the part of the instant joint and several sureties's letter of joint and several sureties could not be ruled out or that it was impossible for the complainant to judge whether the part of the instant letter of joint and several sureties was the requisite for the complainant

2. The judgment of the court below is based on various circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined and the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below, namely, ① the defendant denies the crime at the court of the first instance; ② the complainant, despite the existence of the joint and several surety in this case upon filing a civil lawsuit from the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund around April 201, when the complainant had already been aware of the existence of the joint and several surety in this case, the result of appraisal that the writing on the joint and several surety in this case is presumed to be the same as the complainant, and the request for the extension of debt to the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund was not accepted; and ③ the defendant filed a complaint with the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund around September 26, 201; ③ the defendant was issued a written confirmation to the complainant on September 19, 2011, despite the issuance of the written confirmation from the person who committed the crime in this case, the complainant exercised implied rights during the police investigation immediately thereafter (see the suspect interrogation protocol of the police on October 27, 2011).