The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (fact-finding) E, H, N, M, andO’s statements are consistent with each other and reliable. According to each of the above statements, the court below found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged of this case on the ground that each of the statements made by E, H, N, M, andO was not reliable, despite the fact that the Defendant forged and exercised a land exchange agreement in the name of H as stated in the facts charged of this case, and the Defendant could have acknowledged the fact that money was received by deceiving the victim E, H, N, M, andO was not reliable.

2. Determination

A. A. Around May 2008, the summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) the Defendant agreed to proceed with E to jointly carry out a joint development project with E on six parcels, including “Seoul-si D”; (b) paid KRW 280 million as an investment deposit; (c) on December 23, 2008, the Defendant terminated the joint development project agreement; (d) upon which E had the Defendant demand the return of the investment deposit, the Defendant owed the obligation to return the investment deposit; and (e) upon having the Defendant urged the return of the investment deposit, E sold 11 parcel, such as “Seoul-si G,” which is the Defendant’s wife F, sold the land to E, and had the land exchange agreement on H-owned forest located in the middle of each of the above forests was concluded.

1) The Defendant forged private document: (a) although there was no fact that the Defendant agreed with H on the land exchange agreement with regard to “I forest in Gyeong-si, Gyeong-si,” the ownership of H, and “G forest in Gyeong-si,” the Defendant’s wife F, the Defendant agreed on May 2, 2008 to exchange “I forest in Gyeong-si,” around December 22, 2008, and around H and May 22, 2008, the Defendant posted the H’s seal arbitrarily angled on the name next to H’s name. Accordingly, the Defendant forged one copy of the land exchange agreement with regard to the rights and obligations for the purpose of exercising the right and obligations (in the indictment, it appears to have been written as “2012.” However, it appears to have been written as “the letter of indictment”) on December 13, 2012.