The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the court below which acquitted the defendant on the charge of this case on the ground that it constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime, despite the fact that the defendant forged the contract entered in the facts charged and used it by submitting it to the court, and there is an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is a person who actually operates a business entity with a trade name, “C,” which is engaged in manufacturing business and wholesale retail business in Pakistan, and D is an operator under the name of the business entity with a trade name, “E engaged in printing and manufacturing business.”

1) On September 28, 2018, the Defendant shall complete the fabrication of private document in the column of “C” in the location of the site for the factory lease contract at “C” factory located in “C” in “C”, “B million won,” “B million won in the deposit column,” and “the key facilities and special terms and conditions for the leaser to deliver power electricity (150KW) facilities and to have the toilet repair and mail (res and conditions) available to the lessee. The lessee first enters the printing machine into the date of April 8, 201, the rest of the machinery enters into the date of May 3, 2017, and the rent shall be paid from June 3, 2017, the lessee’s name and duty on the “B” in “G, and the name and duty on the name and duty of the owner of the factory in the name of the lessee,” and the Defendant in “B, at the time of the lessee’s name and duty on the name of the “D” (the name and duty of the owner).

2) On September 28, 2018, the Defendant in the event of the above investigation document was forged. 2) The District Court against D in the Cheongyang-gu District Court Goyang-ro District Court Goyang-ro 209, Goyang-gu, Goyang-si around 2018.