The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of the circumstances acknowledged by the prosecutor’s summary of the grounds for appeal, i.e., the defendant already suspended construction with the victim C, there is no reason to agree that the victim C will additionally provide 270 million won or more without objection to the additional construction claimed by the defendant. The victim’s certificate of personal seal impression attached to the agreement is issued on August 27, 2009, which is nine months prior to the preparation of the "Additional Amount and Construction Work Section Agreement", and it is not deemed to have been issued for the preparation of the above agreement. The above agreement and the "Additional Construction Work Statement" (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Additional Settlement Statement") do not have the victim’s own signature in the above agreement and the document preparation method different from the above two documents written on the same day, the court below found the defendant not guilty of the charges of this case even though it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant forged the additional settlement statement of this case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination:

A. On July 1, 2009, the Defendant entered into a contract for new construction works for detached houses (total floor area of 985.10 square meters) with a construction period of 1.3 billion won (in addition, 1.3 billion won) with the victim C and Yongsan-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City on the construction period from August 1, 2009 to June 1, 2010, and continued construction works after receiving advance payment from the victim. On April 2010, the Defendant was notified of the termination of the construction contract with the victim due to the completion of the construction process, etc., and the dispute occurred in the process of settling the construction contract with the victim. In order to take over the construction cost from the victim, the Defendant was unaware of the following “additional amount and the construction cost reduction agreement” and “additional construction cost statement” and had the intent to exercise it.

1) On May 16, 2010, the Defendant who forged an additional amount and a construction agreement with respect to the fabrication of private documents.