The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is not known, and the defendant's testimony is also guaranteed the defendant's opportunity to cross-examine the N's statement through the police investigation process against the defendant. Thus, the court below's rejection of the admissibility of evidence on the N's statement, etc. is improper.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined as follows: (a) although the phrase “the above real estate shall be replaced by the transfer of registration to an obligor,” without the consent of the Defendant, D, and E in the instant real estate property exchange contract prepared around September 12, 2013, was added to the phrase “the above real estate shall be replaced by the transfer of registration to the obligorO; (b) the following circumstances acknowledged by the record are apparent by the indictment itself; (c) the person who added the above phrase to the instant real estate property exchange contract is not the Defendant, but the N in the indictment itself; and (d) the Defendant, from the investigative agency to the court of the lower court, submitted the indictment to E, “after the completion of the instant real estate property exchange contract, it can be agreed to transfer the registration to K”; (c) the Defendant and N in the instant case’s written confirmation to the effect that E merely explained the above exchange contract to N, and thus, it is difficult to view that N in the case’s address was not known, and there was no other reason to receive N in the summons and its whereabouts.