All of the appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the summary of the grounds for appeal can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant has a criminal intent to obtain fraud.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.

2. Examining the evidence of this case in detail in light of the records, the first instance court is just and acceptable to determine that the Defendant was supplied with the seal work without the intention or ability to pay the seal fees from the time when the transaction with the victim was commenced on the ground that C had a liability other than the payment of the seal fees, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. It is sufficient to conclude that the second instance court believed at the time when the Defendant requested the victim to seal work that the Defendant would have been able to pay the fees, and there is an intention to endeavor to pay it, and it is difficult to conclude that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone proves that the Defendant had a criminal intent to acquire the seal, to the extent that it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and there is no error of law by mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as argued by the prosecutor.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

(However, the judgment of the court below, in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, clearly states that the phrase “as of November 22, 2019,” “as of November 22, 2018” and “as of November 17, 2018, KRW 85,498,667,” and “as of November 22, 2019, KRW 85,498,667,” the phrase “as of November 22, 2019.”