The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of evidence, such as the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts), victim I, and G’s statements, the Defendant, without the victim’s consent, can be found to have committed a crime as described in the facts charged, such as cancelling the registration of the establishment of chonsegwon in the victim’s name without the victim’s consent, but the lower court acquitted the Defendant

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that “The Defendant cancelled the registration of the establishment of the right to lease on a deposit basis by forging the proxy of the victim’s name through G Anarbian employees G, even though he did not have been delegated the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the right to lease on a deposit basis under the name of the victim with respect to an officetel 102 Dong Dong 1903 (hereinafter “the instant officetel”) from the injured party around August 20, 2013.”

B. The lower court determined that: (a) the Defendant stated that “the Defendant had obtained the victim’s consent, and used the victim’s seal”; (b) there was no objective evidence to acknowledge that the seal affixed on the power of attorney is the victim; (c) the Defendant merely obtained the victim’s oral consent; (c) it is difficult to obtain the Defendant’s consent to remove the registration of the right of lease on a deposit basis; and (d) G performed the duties of cancelling the registration of the right of lease on a deposit basis with the victim’s seal and power; and

4. In light of the fact that the Defendant stated that the Defendant did not receive an order from the Defendant to register the establishment of the right to lease on a deposit basis (hereinafter “right to lease on a deposit basis”) and that the Defendant did not make a reasonable statement as to why was why he did not receive an order from the Defendant, and that the Defendant stated to the effect that “If the Defendant completed the sale by the end of July, he would have been able to receive the payment rate of KRW 30 million to KRW 50 million if he completed the sale by the end of July, he would have immediately cancelled the registration of the right to lease on a deposit basis of the victim.”