The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal in light of the following facts: (a) the Defendant, as an agent of H (hereinafter “H”), was in charge of purchasing the diesel fuel oil tank and submitted to the victim’s two-way engine (hereinafter “victim”), forged the certificate of inspection under the name of the East International River on steel plates for manufacturing the above tank; (b) submitted and exercised the certificate of inspection to the employee in charge of the victim who knew of the forgery; (c) deceiving the victim, thereby deceiving the victim, thereby deceiving the victim of the amount of KRW 46,772,00 for supply to the victim; and (d) the case is not less than that of the foregoing; and (e) parts, such as the diesel fuel oil tank, which were supplied to the two-way engine, are used in a diesel power plant and may cause direct and serious risks to the public health and safety, if any defect occurs, it is unfair to impose a fine (3 million won).

2. Taking into account the circumstances alleged by the public prosecutor, even if the Defendant entered H around January 25, 2010 and retired from the office on July 3, 2010. At the time of the crime of forging the said private document, the time when the Defendant was employed by him, and the Defendant did not participate in the purchase of the said private document with an inspection certificate forged. As such, even though the Defendant could be seen to have committed each of the instant crimes in accordance with the instructions and explanation of the Defendant, imposing all the responsibility for each of the instant crimes on the Defendant, who had worked in H for about five months, was judged to be harsh; the imposition of all the responsibility for each of the instant crimes is determined to have been harsh; the standard value of the network value demanded by the victim as a result of the inspection of the ingredients of the said private document was satisfied; the quality of the said private machine was not at issue; the Defendant is not deemed to have suffered property damage suffered by H due to each of the instant crimes; and the Defendant is not deemed to have any property damage.