A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts (the use of a falsified document alteration and alteration of a private document) added the same content as that stated in this part of the facts charged to the instant receipt with the F’s consent, and thus, the Defendant did not constitute the crime of altering a private document or uttering of a falsified document. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to unjust sentencing (two months of imprisonment and two years of suspension of execution) which found Defendant guilty of all the facts charged due to the mistake of facts.

B. According to the evidence of mistake of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant, at the time, explained that the instant vehicle is a large vehicle and concluded the instant sales contract with the content of purchasing the vehicle, but the Defendant was found to have submitted to the police station a letter of complaint that F was about to sell the instant vehicle, which is a large vehicle, by deceiving it into a normal vehicle, while the lower court erred by misapprehending facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, thereby making a mistake of finding the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing is unreasonable because it is too uneasible.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant alleged the same purport in the lower court’s determination as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion in detail, with a detailed statement in the “determination on the Defendant and his defense counsel” column. In light of the record, the lower court’s aforementioned determination was examined in light of the record, and as seen below, F appears to have entered into the instant sales contract with the Defendant at the time, stating that the instant vehicle was a large-sized vehicle and that it would have been concluded between the Defendant and the Defendant. As such, F appears to have no reason to agree on the instant receipt by adding the purport that the instant vehicle was not a large-sized vehicle. Therefore, the Defendant appears to have agreed on the instant receipt.