The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (in fact-finding or misunderstanding of legal principles) G representative director of the complainant (FF stock company) is consistently asserted that no document written in the facts charged is affixed with the seal of the complainant as a corporate body.

In addition, considering the fact that the Defendant did not return the office keys while leaving the office, and that G was in custody of a corporate seal imprint and a corporate seal imprint affixed to each of the documents of this case in the company office, it is recognized that each of the documents of this case was forged using a corporate seal imprint kept by the Defendant in the office.

On the contrary, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of the facts is erroneous.

2. Summary of the facts charged in this case and the judgment of the court below

A. The summary of the facts charged against the Defendant is as follows: “The Defendant forged one copy of the amount of settlement A in the name of representative director G in the first order of December 2012, 201, and applied for provisional seizure of the real estate 16 parcels owned by the FF Co., Ltd. in Suwon District Court, Suwon District Court, on January 10, 2012, and exercised the same. The Defendant submitted one copy of the amount of settlement A which was forged as above. On December 2, 2011, the Defendant forged one copy of the cash car certificate in the name of the representative director of the FF Co., Ltd., in the name of the FF Co., Ltd., and submitted one copy of the amount of cash car certificate forged in the Suwon District Court, which was used on January 26, 2012.”

B. The lower court’s judgment: (a) examined the adopted evidence; and (b) “A settlement amount” was accompanied by a corporate seal imprint certificate issued on October 11, 201, when the complainant entered a company around October 2003, which was the complainant; and (c) if G did not issue a corporate seal imprint certificate as asserted by the complainant representative director G, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant stolen the corporate seal imprint certificate; (d) in light of all the circumstances, the Defendant did not seem to have stolen the corporate seal imprint certificate. Therefore, each of the instant documents was written.