The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of F’s statement of the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles), the statement of the credibility of the grounds for appeal, and the notice of the result of voice analysis with one chief of the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office of Science (Evidence No. 21) (Evidence No. 21) by the Defendant, as recorded in the facts charged

may be seen.

Nevertheless, since the court below acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case, it erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Summary of the facts charged in this case and the judgment of the court below

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that the Defendant entered into a joint and several guarantee contract for F’s loan obligations upon F’s request on June 19, 2013, but the F failed to repay the loan obligations and thereby was urged to repay the loan obligations. Upon F’s demand to repay the loan obligations, the Defendant forged and exercised the joint and several guarantee contract at the general public service offices of the high-class branch offices located in the Dong-gu Dong-gu, Busan Metropolitan City on November 12, 2014, and “F borrowed five million won from the credit loan around June 19, 2013,” without the Defendant’s permission.

“Preparation and submission of a false statement of complaint.”

In addition, on January 6, 2015, the Defendant: “F loaned KRW 3 million at the Sejong Savings Bank around June 19, 2013, and forged and exercised a joint and several surety contract without the Defendant’s permission.

“Preparation and submission of a false statement of complaint.”

As a result, the defendant committed a second time with the aim of having F take criminal punishment.

B. The lower court’s judgment, based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, reveals the following circumstances: (i) the above joint and several surety contract was made up by F; (ii) the Defendant had his domicile in Seongdong-gu Seoul, but at the time, completed the move-in report (the Defendant completed the move-in report on February 20, 2013); and (iii) the above joint and several surety contract entered the Defendant’s address as his previous domicile into the Goyang-si location where the Defendant appears at the former domicile; and (iv) A Company Lone Star lending