All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the prosecutor’s grounds of appeal (misunderstanding the facts) is that a mountain area restoration service contract should be concluded with a separate cost, and is distinguished from the diversion of the mountainous district or the completion of a road. As such, F permitted the use of its name only by preparing documents on the diversion of the mountainous district and the completion of a road, and not comprehensively delegated the Defendants’ preparation of documents on the restoration of the mountainous district. Even if F delegated the Defendants the authority to prepare documents on the restoration of the mountainous

According to the record on January 7, 2015, F and Defendant A’s record, it can be confirmed that the fiduciary relationship between F and Defendant A was broken out. Unlike the initially agreed design drawings, the Defendants resisted the construction of a road that intrudes on the land owned by AD without F’s consent, and the Defendants prepared an application for approval of a summary of restoration and restoration plan without F’s consent, and received the application for approval of a mountainous district using the drawings indicated in the state of invasion on the land owned by AD’s use of the land as above is contrary to the inherent nature of delegation. Since F knew that Defendant B forged the written consent for using the land owned by F’s name, it would be against the inherent nature of delegation. The Defendants’ request for approval of the delegation of authority to prepare the document was made by request from the investigative agency to the court of first instance, and the F has consistently notified the Defendants of the fact that the application was lawfully issued to Defendant A’s use of the land under the name of the competent public prosecutor’s name and thus, the Defendants issued the report to the lower court.