The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

M consistently stated to the effect that “the Defendant provided a copy, not the original certificate of the personal seal impression, to the effect that the Defendant did not provide the instant notice of assignment,” and that the Defendant did not mention about the assignment of claims while demanding M to repay, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of all the charges of this case by misunderstanding the fact that the Defendant forged the seal and prepared the instant notice of assignment of claims, and thereby acquitted the Defendant of all the charges of this case.

2. Determination

A. Summary of the facts charged in the instant case 1) The Defendant Limited Company B (hereinafter “B”).

(C) the Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “C”) to which the contract is a contracting party;

2) D. D. (Securities Number AC, hereinafter “instant insurance”).

A) Although there was no record of being entrusted with the assignment of a claim regarding the instant insurance or the notification of the said assignment of a claim to C, a notice of the assignment of claim under the name of K representative director B, stating that “the notification of the transfer of the instant insurance claim to the Defendant” by using a computer on or around June 2015, the Defendant prepared a notice of the transfer of claim under the name of K representative director B, and then affixed three copies of the notice of the transfer of claim to the instant insurance with respect to securities number H and one copy of the notice of the transfer of claim to the instant

(2) Then, the Defendant prepared and forged each of the instant notice of assignment of securities number H insurance to C on August 22, 2016, and issued the notice of assignment of securities number H insurance around November 18, 2016, and received KRW 137,661,552 as if it were a document duly formed. However, C attempted to receive KRW 137,61,52 as the cancellation refund of the instant insurance, but C did not go through the defectiveness of the notice of assignment of securities.

B. The lower court’s determination is as follows: C.