A. In determining the facts, the Defendant issued three copies of the Promissory Notes in blank, both the addressee, face value, and date of issuance, and subsequently determined that the Promissory Notes were forged because E was used to fill the blank portion unfairly, and thus, the Defendant’s accusation is true and not intentional.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the following circumstances that can be recognized by mistake of the facts, i.e., the investigation agency, consistently up to the court below's original decision, i.e., the defendant, the representative director of the D Co., Ltd., instructed AH to secure the recovery of investment in the housing project of this case implemented by D Co., Ltd., and issued one promissory note with a face value of 60 million won and one promissory note with a face value of 1.4 billion won on the same day, and prepared a notarial deed with a face value of 50 million won on Nov. 22, 2007, additionally issued one promissory note with a face value of 50 million won and a notarial deed with a face value of 500 million won on Dec. 11, 2007, E Co., Ltd., with the purport that "AH had no agreement on the part of each of the aforesaid promissory note with the defendant and it was stated in the investigation agency's statement to the effect that the above complaint was not made.