The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In full view of the following facts: (a) the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) reveals that the Defendant forged each of the instant documents with a seal imprint recorded by E and F, and the documents attached with a seal imprint certificate issued by E and F on August 30, 2012, which was after the date of its preparation; and (b) E filed an application for change of a seal imprint on August 22, 2013, the court below acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of the instant case, even though it can be sufficiently recognized, and there is an error of law by misapprehending the facts that affected the conclusion.

2. The court below held that the direct evidence consistent with the facts charged in this case includes statements in E and F investigative agencies and courts, and that the following circumstances acknowledged by the records are acknowledged as follows: (i) since the seal affixed to each letter of this case was affixed by E, the authenticity of the entire document is presumed to have been established, and (ii) the facts charged in this case presumed that the defendant is the actual permanent resident of D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) and the director of the in-house company with the interest of one shareholder, who is the first in-house director, is presumed to have been lent only in the name of E; and in related civil cases, the defendant was actually in the name of I, a corporation

D. The fact that the Defendant is deemed as a beneficial shareholder of D Shares. ③ On April 11, 2014, upon filing an application for a provisional injunction against disposal of shares with E on an application for a temporary injunction against disposal of shares, the Defendant submitted the instant notes and certificates of corporate seal impression issued around the date of its preparation, all corporate registration certificates, all corporate registration certificates, stockholders’ list with corporate seal affixed, and copy of E’s resident registration certificates; ④ In order to prevent legal disputes that may arise in the future regarding the circumstances in which each of the above documents were kept, the Defendant, upon request of E, issued a certificate of corporate seal impression, all corporate registration certificates, stockholders’ list, and resident registration certificates, and kept the instant notes and documents.

It is argued that each document has been kept, issued, and D.