The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is erroneous in the judgment of the court of first instance that acquitted the Defendant on the charge of forging private documents and uttering of falsified investigative documents on the grounds that it is difficult to readily conclude that the complainant, without authority, agreed to the trust of the above shares, the Defendant prepared and exercised the gift contract under the name of the complainant, even though the complainant did not consent to the gratuitous donation of the share of land stated in

2. Article 307(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that “The recognition of a criminal fact shall reach a proof to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt.”

Therefore, the conviction in a criminal trial should be based on evidence of probative value, which leads a judge to the conviction that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt.

In a case where the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone does not reach the degree of conviction, the determination should be made with the benefit of the defendant even if there is a suspicion of guilt.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Do1405, Sept. 1, 1992; 2016Do21231, Oct. 31, 2017). The first instance court rendered a not-guilty verdict on the charge of forging private documents and uttering of falsified private documents on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be readily concluded that the Defendant had prepared and exercised the name donation contract without authority.

In light of the aforementioned relevant legal principles, a thorough examination of the above judgment of the court of first instance compared with the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court of first instance in light of the aforementioned legal principles, and the following circumstances acknowledged pursuant to the above evidence, namely, the fundamental reason for the defendant to prepare a gift contract in the name of the complainant stated in the facts charged, is to construct a building on the ground as stated in the facts charged, insofar as the complainant who is an overseas permanent resident, remains as