The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

On May 25, 2016, the Defendant testified in Seoul Central District Court Decision 201, the Seoul High Court Decision 2015Da14455, Nov. 3, 2016, that the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and misunderstanding of sentencing) and misapprehension of legal principles on the grounds of appeal was false testimony to the effect that the Defendant’s statement of “the details sent and received by K Company J representative” (hereinafter “the part of this case”) as stated in the facts charged in the Seoul High Court case, which is the appellate trial, was obviously written by

Nevertheless, on May 25, 2015, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the remainder of the testimony of the Defendant on May 25, 2016, and found the Defendant not guilty of the reasoning. On November 3, 2016, the lower court pronounced the Defendant not guilty of the testimony of the Defendant on November 3, 2016.

The specific circumstances alleged by the prosecutor are as follows.

In the Seoul Central District Court 2015 High Court 2015 High Court 1248 High Court 2016 High Court 1960 decided that each of the above courts held that "the part of this case cannot be viewed as the defendant's inevitably," and the judgment of the court below is intended to draw the conclusion as stated in its reasoning.

The issues of each case of the Seoul Central District Court and the Seoul High Court are not “whether the Defendant’s writing is written or not,” but “whether the evidence of the check containing the handwritten part of this case is admitted as evidence,” and the overall purport of the judgment is that the Defendant’s writing was not prepared even if it is written.

Since it is alleged, it is difficult to recognize admissibility of evidence as it is not recognized by the statement of the originator.

In the above case, the Supreme Prosecutors' Office made an appraisal that "the possibility is high," but there are many cases where the appraisal agencies do not conclude that "the same person was prepared," but generally reply to the degree that "the possibility is high."

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office is the one.