The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

The gist of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant was delegated by the Deceased with respect to the withdrawal of KRW 370,000,000 from the deceased on September 21, 2015; (b) the Defendant did not indicate himself/herself as his/her agent at the time of the preparation of the pre-delivery slip; (c) the Defendant reported his/her death late October 13, 2015; and (c) the Defendant consented to the change of the name of Alananane’s immediate pension insurance on August 31, 2012 by the Deceased.

However, as the deceased was hospitalized at the time, there is a possibility that the defendant would have changed his name by telephone because he had been hospitalized, ④ there is no motive for the deceased to remove other punishments and to donate insurance, buildings, and 370,000,000 won to the defendant, and ⑤ A statement of opinion (Evidence No. 2) alone, that the deceased had been aware of his consciousness at the time.

In light of the above facts, it cannot be readily concluded, and comprehensively taking account of the fact that there is no reason for the deceased to not express his/her intent of donation in writing in order to prevent the ex post facto inheritance disputes, the Defendant’s act of forging one sheet prior to the withdrawal in the name of the deceased with respect to rights and duties for the purpose of exercising at the security office located in the Kando Center in the press room around September 21, 2015, and presenting a forged statement of withdrawal to an employee of the securities with an influence in his/her name, i.e., he/she received a deposit amount of KRW 370,000,000 from an influence other securities employee, i.e., the victim’s influence, from an influoral securities employee.”

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged.

The punishment of the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution) which is unfair in sentencing is too unhued and unfair.

Judgment

The lower court’s determination as to the assertion of mistake in fact is based on the following: (a) the method of ordinary property management of the deceased, the consciousness of the deceased on August 2015, and the motive, scale, etc. of the Defendant’s donation.