The Defendant submitted a written complaint stating that “the exclusive supply and exclusive sale consignment contract,” “FULL HD HD car goods supply contract,” “3D monitor development service contract,” and “F and E were forged and used without knowledge of the existence thereof,” and the Defendant did not report false facts.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted each of the charges of this case is erroneous in misconception of facts.

The sentencing of the court below (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

On May 18, 2012, F stated on the fourth trial date of the lower court on May 18, 2012, “F made the Defendant keep the required documents in connection with the final return of value-added tax. In the witness’s place, the Defendant’s seal impression was affixed on the contract prepared in advance by the Defendant to E. In order to investigate whether the transaction was made between C and G, the tax official visited the development of the FUL HD camera for 3D broadcast to doubt that the development of the 3D broadcast service contract was made, and subsequently, the Defendant’s argument was changed the title of the FULLHD Ca service contract into the 3D broadcast delivery contract.”

(1) On May 18, 2012, E of the original trial record 70 through 72, 81 pages) . E of May 18, 2012, the Defendant: (a) in the process of the tax investigation, at the court of the original trial, requested T to have the corporate seal affixed to T (hereinafter referred to as “T”) the employees in charge of C general affairs, who stated that the Defendant and F reported to the effect that the payment was not memory or would be sufficient to keep the corporate seal affixed on the written contract made in advance to the Defendant and F; and (b) requested T to have the corporate seal affixed to T (hereinafter referred to as “T”) and signed the corporate seal imprint on the written contract and signed it in the corporate seal imprint register.”