The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the gist of the grounds for appeal, it can be acknowledged that the defendant was free from H for the purpose of having H criminal punishment.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that the facts charged of this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime.

2. On November 9, 201, the Defendant prepared a false complaint with respect to H using a computer for the purpose of having the Defendant, at the office of the Defendant, located in the Sinsan-si Office of the Sinsan-si Office of Seoul Metropolitan City, 1-1003, for the purpose of having him/her criminal punishment, and submitted the above complaint to an employee who cannot be identified by the public service offices of the public service offices of the government-managed branch offices of the public prosecutor's office of the public prosecutor's office located in the Dong-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-si, Seoyang-si, Busan Metropolitan City.

A written complaint was the content that “In preparing a written contract for business rights and land acquisition on January 21, 201, H, the written complaint was that “in preparing and exercising the said contract under one’s name without one’s permission, it would be punished.”

On March 20, 2012, the Defendant continued to be present at the investigation station in Yongsan Police Station in Seoul and the first team office in economy on March 20, 2012, and the police officer I who is investigating the instant case was forged.

A false statement was made by submitting a contract for business rights and land acquisition. The statement was the content that "it forged a contract for business rights and land acquisition by using the name without his/her permission."

However, in fact, business rights and land acquisition contracts submitted by the defendant were written by the defendant and H.

As a result, the defendant raised H with the aim of having H be subject to criminal punishment.

3. The lower court rendered a judgment on the following grounds that the facts charged in the instant case constituted a case where there is no proof of crime, and rendered a judgment of innocence pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

“This Court is legitimate.