All appeals filed by prosecutors and defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The public prosecutor E did not allow the Defendant to prepare each lease contract (hereinafter “each lease contract of this case”) between August 5, 2009 and February 2, 2010 as indicated in the judgment of the court below. Although the Defendant arbitrarily obtained the qualification of E or prepared each lease contract of this case by stealing the name of E, the court below acquitted the Defendant on the charge of using the forged private document and the falsified Private Document, and the use of the falsified Private Document on February 2, 2010, and the use of the falsified Private Document and the falsified Private Document.

B. (1) Since the Defendant: (a) misunderstanding of facts as to the forgery of private documents and the uttering of private documents; and (b) misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant, with the consent of E, prepared a cash custody certificate as stated in the original judgment (hereinafter “the cash custody certificate of this case”) to support the preparation of each lease contract of this case in a formal form; and (c) thus, there is a prior or implied consent to the preparation of a cash custody certificate, the judgment of the court below convicting the Defendant.

(2) In determining the facts regarding fraud, the Defendant was duly entrusted by E with the use of the “L” restaurant and the right to benefit therefrom, so there was a legitimate authority to sublease the victim to the victim. At the time of entering into a lease agreement with the victim, the Defendant had economic capacity to engage in import activities, such as concluding a commission contract with several companies. The victim still occupied the leased facilities to receive compensation for obstacles, business facilities, etc. from the Korea Rural Community Corporation despite the expiration of the lease term, thereby refusing to refund the lease deposit. Therefore, the Defendant shall be defrauded.