All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the court below found the Defendants not guilty on the grounds that it is difficult to credibility the statements of E and F, which correspond to the facts charged in the instant case, but consistently states that E did not have consented to the new construction of a stable, that village residents G and H did not explicitly express consent to the new construction of a stable, and that the Defendants prepared a written consent without direct face to E only the written consent in the name of E, as shown in the instant facts charged, and therefore, it is recognized without reasonable doubt that the Defendants prepared and used the written consent in the name of E without the consent of E, and thus, the court below acquitted the Defendants of the facts otherwise erred by misapprehending the facts.

2. The court below's decision is based on the following circumstances acknowledged by the record: (i) in the court of the court below, E did not prepare a power of attorney for accusation that he prepared, (ii) in the court of the court below, E did not prepare a letter of attorney for accusation; and (iii) in the investigation agency, it is difficult to believe E's statement as it is because it stated that two seals were affixed, but its head was not memory properly; and (iv) in the court of the court below, E stated that it was hard to believe the statement as it was because it was later known that there was a wind and smell around the house because it was aware that the post of the defendant B was not currently located in the court of the court; and (iv) in discussing the issue of livestock pens at the community center, it is doubtful that it was necessary to newly construct a stable, but there was a change in the expected location and location of the livestock shed later, and that it was about to reach the issue of Article 20.