The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of the gist of the grounds of appeal (misunderstanding of facts) of the written undertaking to pay the instant case and the content of the recording on October 17, 2014, it is recognized that the Defendant arbitrarily prepared and arranged the said undertaking to pay the amount without the consent of GBH.

The judgment of the court below which judged otherwise contains an error of mistake of facts.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, based on the following: (a) the location of the F’s head office is the Seosan factory until July 2, 2014; (b) L, a spouse of G, completed the registration of the transfer of ownership by winning a successful bid for the said factory; (c) all facilities outside the factory appear to have been owned by D or G; and (d) there is no evidence to the effect that F, in relation to the fact that F, regularly transferred the said factory and facilities between D and D, or paid rent, and that F, kept F’s employee identification and seal impression certification in D, the actual owner interest representative is G; (c) H appears to have been the nominal representative director indicated in the injury to the corporate registration; and (d) as at September 2, 2014, the date of the instant payment undertaking, at the request of G, the Defendant kept the price guarantee for the goods and the Defendant’s obligation in accordance with the demand for the payment guarantee of G from the office.

The F’s employee identification and certificate of seal impression used to draw up and deliver the instant payment undertaking with the F’s employee identification and certificate, ③ the F was sentenced to a judgment recognizing F’s liability for guarantee liability in a lawsuit claiming a guarantee obligation against E based on the instant payment undertaking; ④ on May 19, 2016, the Defendant marked F’s name at his own discretion without being subject to G’s instruction in the Civil Procedure Act even though he was subject to G’s instruction and marked F’s corporate director in the instant payment undertaking.

Any false statement contrary to memory.