The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

The lower court found the Defendant not guilty as to the use of the document pertaining to the perjury 95 case among each of the facts charged in the instant case against the Defendant, and found the Defendant guilty as to the remainder of the facts charged. However, inasmuch as the prosecutor filed an appeal against the acquittal portion among the lower judgment, the Defendant and the Prosecutor did not appeal against the conviction portion, the conviction portion among the lower judgment became final and conclusive separately.

Therefore, the scope of this court's adjudication is limited to the acquittal.

In light of the purport of the grounds for appeal, the Defendant’s statement is difficult to believe in light of the following: (a) the Defendant’s statement and the Defendant’s statement are inconsistent with each other with the Defendant’s statement on the place where the instant lease agreement was prepared; (b) the victim demanded to forge a false lease agreement after lending money; and (c) the Defendant appears to have delivered a forged lease agreement by borrowing money from others.

On the other hand, the victim H's statement is consistent with the common sense that it was given a real estate lease contract with a loan of money and a collateral.

Therefore, although the victim could be found to have received the delivery of the above contract without knowing the forgery of the lease contract of this case, the court below acquitted the facts charged of this case. The court below erred in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Judgment

The summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: (a) the Defendant forged the “Lease Agreement” in the name of L as stated in paragraph (2) of the facts constituting the crime in the lower judgment; and (b) drafted a letter stating that, around February 20, 2012, the Defendant repaid the loan and interest totaling KRW 95 million borrowed from “H” up to December 20, 2012, up to December 20, 2012; and (c) delivered the said lease agreement to the victim as if the said written statement had been duly formed, thereby exercising the said investigation document.

The court below's decision.