The appeal by the prosecutor is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the gist of the grounds for appeal, it is sufficiently recognized that the J has no authority to prepare a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) in the name of G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”), and the Defendant was aware that the J has no authority to prepare the instant lease agreement, even though he/she was not entitled to prepare the instant lease agreement.

2. The following circumstances are acknowledged based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court.

A. H, the actual representative director of G, ordered the construction of a factory of the Chungcheongbuk-gun (hereinafter “instant construction”) to I, and J, the actual representative of I, subcontracted the said construction to K en bloc.

B. K re-subcontracts the instant construction to the Defendant, and the Defendant, in consultation with J, continued the instant construction.

C. The J stated in the court below that “the Defendant did not directly permit the Defendant to create and use G seal” (which is 37 pages of the trial record), but the court below delegated matters necessary for H to carry out the instant construction work to J and granted the J a certificate of his seal impression and corporate seal impression (which is 37,55 pages of the trial record), and the Defendant prepared the instant lease contract in the name of G at the request of E when leasing temporary materials, such as river uniforms, from D’s representative E, and entered the lessee’s telephone number in G, and L, a financial official of D, was notified of the fact that the said lease was concluded in currency with J (the trial record No. 80,82 pages of the trial record), and (3) subsequent to the establishment of the instant lease contract, H visited visited the Corporation on July 11, 2013 to grant the above lease contract (the temporary record, etc. of this case).