The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of the purport of the grounds for appeal (based on factual errors) E and I consistently stated to the effect that the Defendant has forged the contract, corresponding to K’s statement, whether the contract recorded in the photograph submitted by the Defendant is “a forged contract” or “a forged contract” cannot be known, and the circumstance leading up to the preparation of the contract in this case is difficult to deem that the contract was drafted around April 11, 2017, in light of the fact that it is difficult to view that the contract was forged.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. The Defendant of the facts charged in the instant case is the representative of D (ju), a seller, who is a contractor and a seller of B B B-Gu and two parcels C-B, and E purchased the above C-F.

1) On April 17, 2014, the Defendant forged private documents: (a) printed out a multi-family housing supply contract on the F of the building CY building at the office in the Jung-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City B CY reconstruction site; and (b) as a black-type pen in the column of Article 17, “Article 17 (Special Agreement”) the Defendant submitted to the Seocho-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Central District Court a copy of the supply contract for multi-family housing in the name of E, a private document on rights and obligations, which is a private document for the purpose of exercising the right and obligations; (b) around April 19, 2017, the Defendant used a copy of the output of the apartment house supply contract, as described in paragraph (1), as if the construction was duly prepared, to a public official without knowledge of the forgery.

B. The lower court’s determination is based on the following facts or circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated, namely, ① the instant contract as “instant contract” and the nominal owner.