The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

The summary of the grounds for appeal (fact-finding) was that the Defendant had a claim of KRW 25 million against G. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, inasmuch as the Defendant did not prepare a false notarial deed, the Defendant was guilty of all of the facts charged of the instant case, even though he did not have any fact that there was any false notarial deed.

Judgment

A. On September 9, 2008, the Defendant: (a) around September 9, 2008, at the Busan So-gu C Office; (b) around fact, the Defendant: (c) reported the D’s claim against E to F, an attorney-at-law in charge of notarial services, who is aware of such fact, on behalf of the above both parties; and (d) made a notarial deed (No. 962, 2008, 200, 2000 won to lend D to E; and (c) had the said F, keep the said notarial deed.

Accordingly, the defendant made a false report to a public official, and made him enter false facts in the original copy of a notarial deed, and exercised it.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of all the facts charged in this case by taking full account of the evidence presented in its judgment.

C. The prosecutor bears the burden of proving the criminal facts prosecuted in a criminal trial for a trial on the trial of the party. The conviction should be based on evidence with probative value sufficient to conclude that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, the doubt of guilt against the defendant is likely even if there is no such evidence.

Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1151, Jul. 22, 2010). Pursuant to the foregoing legal doctrine, the following was duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the trial court.