The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is a director of D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) and entered into a subcontract agreement with D (representative).

F. That the Defendant, who was unable to receive the payment of the construction cost, was paid directly by G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”) from the ordering person due to the failure to receive the payment of the construction cost.

At the request of the G, the author tried to forge a direct payment agreement in the name of G.

A. On July 19, 2016, the Defendant of a private document forgery: “Written agreement on direct payment of subcontract consideration (direct payment)” using a computer for the purpose of exercising it at H2-story D offices in Suwon-si, Suwon-si; and “The ordering person shall pay the subcontract consideration to the sewage supplier directly in the following account:

On August 5, 2016, the date of payment of KRW 74,800,000, the date of the first 74,800,000 was 7 days or less after the completion of the second 74,80,000, and on July 19, 2016, three copies were printed out by the “I of the ordering G representative G representative I of the ordering G representative I”, and at the G office located in the infestestest population J, the head of the seal impression is also necessary to prepare documents necessary for I’s permission, such as documents necessary for I’s direct payment (direct payment).

Accordingly, the Defendant forged three copies of a direct payment agreement in the name of G, a private document on rights and obligations (hereinafter “instant direct payment agreement”).

B. On July 2016, the Defendant held two copies of the above-mentioned subcontract consideration direct payment agreement with F who is aware of the forgery at the E office located in Ansan-gu, Dongg-gu, Sinsan-si, Sinsan-si.

2. The lower court’s judgment did not verify the documents on the ground that the direct evidence that corresponds to the facts charged is the sole statement of the I, that is, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence, namely, the I does not properly confirm the documents on the ground that the Defendant is required to permit the work in the court.