The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor to the summary of the grounds for appeal, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and thereby acquitted the Defendant.

Judgment on the Reasons for Appeal

A. In light of the following points (the facts and circumstances are acknowledged by the evidence adopted by the court below), there are suspicions as to whether the facts charged of this case are guilty or not.

1) On January 10, 2015, the Defendant requested D to issue a medical certificate of injury on the day when he/she received a furnion surgery on the inside heat from E Council members D’s doctor D, but D refused to do so, saying, “A general medical certificate requiring approximately one week medical treatment may be issued, and an additional medical certificate may be issued upon the lapse of the next period.”

Accordingly, the defendant is entitled to extend the treatment period to D.

“Although the request was made, D talked that “I cannot do so.”

Ultimately, the Defendant, on the day, was issued a general medical certificate with the treatment period of approximately one week as “a week” (hereinafter “the general medical certificate of this case”).

2) However, even though the Defendant was issued with a medical certificate of forgery of the instant facts charged (hereinafter “the instant medical certificate of injury”) to a police officer during January 2015, the Defendant was hospitalized from the first hospital to the first hospital on February 7, 2015 (Article 17(1) of the Medical Service Act), and was hospitalized from the first hospital to the second hospital on February 7, 2015, and did not appear to have any further medical examination as to the progress after drilling from January 10, 2015 (Article 9 of the Enforcement Rule of the Medical Service Act) but did not appear to have any particular response despite being issued by the Defendant and the Defendant of the Council member, who was not a regular medical doctor from F during January 2015 (hereinafter “the instant medical certificate of injury”). (Article 17(3) of the Medical Service Act provides a medical certificate of direct observation of the patient (Article 9 of the Enforcement Rule of the Medical Service Act), and the general medical certificate of injury and injury are strictly divided.