The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the gist of the grounds for appeal, although the defendant altered the G personal seal impression under the name of the head of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Hodong and fully recognizes the fact of its use, the court below acquitted the defendant of the facts charged in this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in this case changed the part of "O. 14, 1987" on the date of transfer of G in the name of the head of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Serodong, which was located in the name of "O. 14, 2007" to the defendant for the purpose of exercising at the F office of Defendant's operation in Jung-gu, Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul, and changed one copy of the certificate of personal seal impression under the name of the head of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Serodong, and on May 21, 2009, the defendant applied for the cancellation registration of the right to collateral security established in the 1,802m2m2 before the Gyeonggi-gu, Gyeonggi-gu, G applied for the registration of cancellation of the right to collateral security established in the 1,802m2m2 in the Gyeonggi-gu, Jung-gu, Busan, and used it by issuing it to public officials

B. The lower court determined that the Defendant was acquitted of the Defendant on the ground that according to the witness G’s legal statement and the fact-finding reply, the Defendant was in custody by May 21, 2009 with G’s certificate issued on May 12, 2009, and that the transfer date column among G’s certificate was altered, but it cannot be readily concluded that the Defendant altered the certificate solely on the ground that the Defendant was in custody of G’s certificate. The evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to find that the Defendant altered the certificate of G’s personal seal impression, and that there was no other evidence to prove otherwise.

C. According to the records of this case’s decision, the Defendant copied the Defendant’s resident registration certificate at the date and place indicated in the facts charged of this case.