A. Fact-misunderstanding F leased and operated E farm (hereinafter “instant farm”). On December 16, 2013, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement stating that F and the instant farm shall be free of charge for deposit and monthly rent, and that F and G (victim D) shall receive KRW 30,000 per ton of feed and receive KRW 30,000 per ton of feed from the victim, while the victim consented to F to enter into the said lease agreement.

Even if there was no prior consent of the victim on the preparation of the lease agreement,

Even if the victim confirmed the contents of the above lease contract, and F had the right to lease the farm of this case valid at the time of the conclusion of the above lease contract and delivered two copies of the lease contract with the seal affixed by the victim to the defendant, and it was believed that the defendant was the consent of the victim.

Accordingly, since a lease contract was prepared by stating the matters concerning subsidies in the column for special agreement as stated in the crime No. 1 of the judgment below as stated in the judgment below, there was no intention to forge or exercise a private document in the name of the victim, and there was no intention to deceive the court by false assertion and proof in civil litigation.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case is erroneous as a matter of law.

B. The sentence of the lower court (the fine of KRW 3 million for the crime of forging a private document as indicated in its holding, the fine of KRW 600,000 for the crime of aiding and abetting a private document, and the crime of aiding and abetting a private document as indicated in its holding) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The judgment of the court below is legitimate.