The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The first instance court rendered a not guilty verdict on all charges of forging private documents and uttering of falsified private documents.

In this regard, since only the prosecutor appealed on the charge of the use of private documents among the judgment of the court of first instance, the acquittal portion on the charge of the use of private documents was separately determined in the judgment of the court of first instance.

Therefore, the scope of the judgment of the court of first instance is limited to the acquittal on the charge of the aiding and abetting Private Document.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. In full view of the following: (a) the content of the pre-tax agreement prepared between F and the Defendant along with the F’s consistent statement in the gist of the grounds for appeal; (b) the preparation process of the pre-tax agreement; and (c) the circumstance of the reversal of the statement made by the Defendant by the Defendant in an investigative agency; and (d) the fact that the Defendant forged the F’s receipt on February 27, 2017 (as indicated in the facts charged, page 15 of the investigation record; hereinafter “instant receipt”).

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court of the first instance that acquitted of the charge of aiding private documents among the facts charged is erroneous in the misconception of facts.

B. Article 307(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides, “The recognition of facts must be made to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt.” Therefore, in a criminal trial, the conviction ought to be based on evidence of probative value, which leads a judge to the conviction that the facts charged are true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. In a case where the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone does not reach the degree that such conviction would lead to a conviction, even if there is suspicion of guilt, the interests of the defendant should be determined (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Do1405, Sept. 1, 1992; 2016Do21231, Oct. 31, 2017).