The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal consistently states to the effect that “A in fact has no reason to delegate the management of affairs to the defendant who is merely an employee,” and the defendant is keeping the power of attorney without a reason to keep it, which is not a party to the partnership agreement concluded between the above company and E, and the defendant is likely to make a new seal and affix a seal on the power of attorney using the seal impression B, but the defendant has forged the power of attorney in the name B. However, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of the facts charged is erroneous.

2. The circumstances that the court below found based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below stated in detail. The witness E also prepared a new seal imprint and affixed a partnership agreement with C and the defendant around June 13, 2014, and the representative director B did not appear at the time, and instead, there was a proxy certificate with the defendant, and the proxy certificate was attached to B. The contents of the proxy certificate were not memory, but the prosecutor stated to the effect that "it was a content that "the agent shall delegate all authority to the agent," but it was probable that the defendant made a new seal imprint and affixed a new seal stamp using the seal impression of B, but there was no evidence to acknowledge it. The evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be viewed as being sufficiently proven that the defendant forged the proxy certificate in the name of B.