The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: I/K’s legal statement in each of the first instance instances and K’s statement in each of the investigative agencies; and

Even if it is possible to fully recognize the credibility of each of the above statements in light of the overall contents and circumstances thereof.

In that sense, the first instance court rejected the statements of I and K without reasonable grounds, and misleads the misunderstanding of the facts charged in the instant case, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination:

A. The first instance court’s judgment on the first instance is that the prosecutor bears the burden of proving the criminal facts prosecuted in a criminal trial, and the conviction should be based on strict evidence with probative value, which makes the judge feel true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, there is a suspicion of guilt against the Defendant even if there is no such evidence.

In light of the circumstances in its reasoning that are recognized by the adopted evidence, the Defendant was acquitted on the grounds that it is difficult to believe that the witness K and I’s testimony at each court of first instance or the statement at K’s investigative agency, which seems to correspond to some of the facts charged in the instant case, is insufficient to recognize that the remainder of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone, as stated in the facts charged, the Defendant forged and exercised the obligation repayment commitment as stated in the facts charged.

(1) At the first instance court, I concluded that the first instance court conducted doping with a commitment to discharge the obligation, and then before or immediately after the delivery by content-certified mail, I presented it to K.

In addition, the union stated that the content-certified mail to be received by the union would also be delivered to K, and on the other hand, K should first have known the existence of the letter of undertaking to repay the debt, reporting the documents related to the application for provisional attachment.

At the same time, the defendant demands the performance of his obligation.