A. Improper sentencing of the Defendant (the sentence of the lower court: a fine of KRW 500,00)

B. Prosecutor 1) Fact-misunderstanding (as to the acquittal portion of the judgment below) is consistent and specific, the complainant’s statement that the Defendant forged the instant labor contract, and even if the Defendant and C received employment incentives on or around September 2016, the Defendant appears to have submitted the forged labor contract by affixing the seal of the representative president without the complainant’s permission.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which rejected statements made by the complainants who correspond to the facts charged without any special ground and accepted only the defendant's assertion and acquitted the defendant on the facts of the above private document.

2) Improper sentencing

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of the Prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts in a criminal trial ought to be based on the prosecutor’s proof of the facts charged, and the judge ought to find the Defendant guilty with evidence having probative value sufficient to have a reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, even if there is suspicion of guilt against the Defendant, it is inevitable to determine the Defendant’s interest.

2) On the grounds of the circumstances and legal principles of the lower judgment, the lower court, based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, such as the statement in the investigative agency of D’s witness witness witness of the lower court, and the statement in the court of the lower court, etc., alone, stated in the instant work contract that the Defendant is “A” and “A” on June 3, 2016 to retirement age, and “A: the representative chairperson D of the occupants’ representatives, and employees (B): and then forged the instant work contract, which is a private document on rights and obligations, by affixing the seal

It is insufficient to see that there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant has forged the above labor contract, and thus, the defendant was acquitted on the charge of aiding and abetting private documents among the facts charged in the instant case.

(iii)..