A. With respect to a promissory note signed on July 10, 2009, the Defendant did not verify all the contents of the letter of payment made by the Defendant on July 10, 2009 and did not affix the seal of the Defendant. In relation to a promissory note made on July 30, 2009, the Defendant entered both the addressee, face value, issue date, payment place, and name, and affixed the seal possessed by the Defendant. In addition, there is no affirmative proof by the prosecutor that the Defendant reported false facts contrary to objective truth.

(c)

The punishment sentenced by the first instance court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of the law, the first instance court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the grounds of detailed circumstances in the column of “the grounds for conviction”.

In light of the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the first instance court, each payment made on July 10, 2009 and each payment made on July 30, 2009 by the Defendant, which was alleged to have been altered, and each promissory note made on July 30, 2009, by the victim, even though the Defendant confirmed its content, stated its personal information, and affixed the seal of the Defendant, thereby forging or changing the said payment and promissory note.

Since it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant made a false statement while filing a complaint or making a supplementary statement, the judgment above in the first deliberation is just and acceptable, and there is an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the defendant.

It does not appear.

B. There is no change in circumstances that may be considered in sentencing after the judgment of the first instance court, and considering the various conditions of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments of the instant case, considering the circumstances asserted by the Defendant on the grounds of appeal, the first deliberation sentence against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

3. Thus, the defendant's appeal is without merit.