The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) there is no reason to newly prepare the instant agreement at the time one year and four months after the Defendant was engaged in the business; (b) around that time, there was no reason to prepare the instant agreement; (c) around that time, there was a rapid growth of the company’s sales; (d) E’s embezzlement of funds for the company was not an issue; and (e) E borrowed from the company; and (e) the instant agreement was considerably unfavorable to E; (b) the transfer of all the stocks and earned surplus from the breach of the agreement to the other party free of charge; (c) the Defendant decided against E; (d) the general public is difficult to obtain; (e) the instant agreement is accompanied by one copy of the personal seal impression of the Defendant and E; (e) while the date on which the Defendant’s personal seal impression certificate was issued is not attached; and (e) the Defendant did not mention at all at the time of dispute between E and E, it is clear that the instant agreement was forged by the Defendant.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the whole of the facts charged on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the instant agreement was forged by mistake of facts.

2. Determination

A. As to the facts charged of this case, the lower court determined that “after forging one copy of the agreement in the name of the Defendant E, the lower court attempted to believe that the instant agreement was forged due to the lack of objective circumstances or the fact that the E’s statement that the instant agreement was forged is merely a conjection, and thus, was presented by the prosecutor.”