The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles may be the other party to a crime of gambling in a private document prepared by the defendant, inasmuch as he/she had different knowledge that the document prepared by the defendant was disqualified.

Nevertheless, the court below found H not guilty of the facts charged on the exercise of private documents prepared for qualification, on the ground that H had been aware of the fact that H had been aware of his qualification as a defendant in advance. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one million won suspension of sentence) is too uneased and unfair.

2. Determination

A. In the context of the crime of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the exercise of a letter refers to an act that is likely to impair the public trust in relation to a document by using forged document as authentic. As such, the other party to the event is not restricted and cannot be the other party to the event because it is the name of preparation of forged document. However, if a document is exercised to an accomplice, etc. who has already known that it was forged, it cannot be the other party to the event (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do4663, Jan. 28, 2005). The same applies to the case of the crime of gambling a private document prepared for qualification.

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, ① a resolution that appoints the defendant and E as a joint manager at a meeting of temporary management unit in C, is invalid due to serious defects.

In full view of the following: (a) on September 6, 2012, 2012, the Suwon District Court Decision 2012 Gohap 306 Decided September 6, 2012, which included the phrase “, was derived from the application of G with H’s representative director; and (b) the agreement, which is a private document prepared by the Defendant and H, was made together with all the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, H, even according to all the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, at the time of drafting the instant agreement.