The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts) is as follows: (a) the Defendant changed the name of the owner in the name of the owner in the name of the owner in the name of the F without authority and such change of the name is illegal; and (b) the Defendant was acquitted on the ground that the Defendant did not have any intent or intent to acquire deception or deception even though

2. The lower court determined as follows: (a) contrary to the evidence duly adopted and examined in the facts charged, it is recognized that the lower court testified to the effect that the Defendant gave the victim a consent to change the name of the owner to M, who is his/her father, and that the name of the owner was changed from the Defendant on October 17, 2016 to M; (b) the victim was performing a new construction work in accordance with the said building permit that the name of the owner was changed; (c) the victim was currently under the status of the completion of the construction; (d) the victim was not subject to an investigation at all at the investigation stage; and (e) the victim was present at the lower court as a witness to the effect that “the Defendant did not make a false statement, and there was no injury from the Defendant”; and (e) the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone, as stated in the facts charged, there was the

It is difficult to see that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and the defendant was acquitted.

In full view of the above evidence and the circumstances of the reasoning of the court below, there was a criminal defendant's deception or fraud.

In addition, it is difficult to see that the damage in fraud was finally caused.

As such, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there are errors in the misapprehension of facts as alleged by the public prosecutor.

subsection (b) of this section.