The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In regard to the forgery of each private document, preparation of each qualification-based private document, uttering of each status-based private document, use of a qualification-based private document, uttering of a qualification-based private document, false entry into public electronic records, etc., and exercise of any false entry into public electronic records, the Defendant, without any authority, is a sales contract for shares in the name of S and a stock company D (hereinafter “D”).

(1) Each of the above public electronic records was forged, and the minutes of the temporary general meeting of shareholders were prepared twice with the qualification of the representative director, despite the absence of the lawful appointment of D representative director. 2 copies of the forged private document and one of the two private documents prepared with the qualification of the representative director as above, which was submitted to a registry office, and exercised them. In addition, the same public electronic records as the original register of notarial deed were recorded in the fact of dismissal and new appointment of the representative director and the director, and kept the above public electronic records. Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts, with the consent of S, prepared a sales contract for shares in the name, and prepared a list of shareholders with the consent of V, with the consent of D representative director, and prepared a temporary general meeting of shareholders in the qualification of the representative director legally appointed as D representative director, and the defendant did not constitute the crime of forging and preparing each qualification apartment document, and on the premise that each of the above public electronic records was not recorded in the victim's unlawful exercise of 100 billion won or less (hereinafter referred to as 1000 billion won or less).