The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the reasons for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is the signature of the defendant in a letter of guarantee of the identity stated in the facts charged, the telephone number stated in the above letter of guarantee of the identity is the telephone number actually used by the defendant, and the mail number of the staff of the Korean Embassy stationed in the above letter of guarantee of the identity (as of May 22, 190) of the Embassy staff stated in the above letter of guarantee

In light of the above records, even if the defendant had been staying in Korea at the time of preparation, the facts charged that the defendant prepared or prepared the above letter of guarantee of identity was not sufficiently proven even though the defendant had high credibility of the above letter of guarantee of identity.

In light of the above, the judgment of the court below acquitted the defendant.

2. The lower court argues to the effect that the Defendant did not consistently prepare a written guarantee of the identity stated in the facts charged from an investigative agency to this court. ① The Defendant’s signature stated in the above identity guarantee document appears to be somewhat different from the Defendant’s signature stated in the passport and lease agreement, etc.; ② the Defendant’s statement related to the Defendant “D” was issued with the identity guarantee stated in the name of “A.”

“Along with the fact that the Defendant was immediately authorized to prepare or prepare the said identity guarantee; thereby, the Defendant was immediately allowed to prepare or obtain the said identification guarantee.

In other words, it is difficult to readily conclude that another group of people has prepared a personal identity guarantee under the name of the defendant without the consent of the defendant, and D also stated that the defendant was unaware of the fact that there was no knowledge about the defendant. ③ Meanwhile, although the defendant was investigated by an investigative agency and made a statement to the effect that he knows the person "E", it cannot be ruled out that the "E" is not the same as the "E" as the above facts charged, and ④ there was a fact that the Embassy staff of the Republic of Korea Embassy in the business Vietnam made a telephone conversation with the defendant due to the illegal stay, etc. of "D".