The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the court below found the defendant guilty of the charges of this case by deceiving the victim E (hereinafter referred to as "victim E") by presenting the forged document in the name of "China Seocho-gu Construction Corporation". However, the court below found the defendant not guilty of the charges of this case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts.

2. Determination

A. In a criminal trial, the conviction of guilt should be based on evidence with probative value, which could lead a judge to feel true enough to have a reasonable doubt. Unless such proof is given, the conviction cannot be determined even if there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant.

In addition, in light of the fact that the criminal appellate court has the nature as a post-examination even after the fact that it has the nature of a post-examination and the spirit of the de facto direct examination under the Criminal Procedure Act, in a case where the first instance court rendered a not guilty verdict of the facts charged on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to exclude a reasonable doubt after undergoing the examination of witness, etc., it may be probable or doubtful as to the facts partially opposed

Even if it does not reach the degree of sufficiently resolving the reasonable suspicion caused by the first instance trial, such circumstance alone alone does not lead to finding that there was an error of misconception of facts in the judgment of the first instance court that lack of proof of crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do8610, Apr. 15, 2016). B.

If we look at the following circumstances acknowledged by the records with respect to the instant case, the health team, the various facts and circumstances recognized by the lower court, and the degree of sufficient resolution of such reasonable doubts raised by the lower court during the trial.