A. As to the fraud, misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles 1), it is not possible to mislead E as a genuine public document due to the malicious preparation of the forged business registration certificate, and delivery of the forged business registration certificate to E who already knows that the registration certificate was forged is not the crime of uttering of the forged public document, since it was not the crime of uttering of the forged public document, since it was not the case of deceiving E as a professor while introducing E as a professor, and most of the money received from E was used directly by E or used for E for E.

3) With respect to the fabrication of each private document and the uttering of a private document, in the case of a construction work standard contract, only the consultation with E was prepared, and it was not used for E, and the statement of benefits and the letter of appointment are prepared upon the request of E, to convert I into a stock company after three months after the registration of the business in the trade name called “I”. Therefore, even if the defendant was authorized to prepare the above documents, and even if he falls under the above Article, it is not the crime of uttering of the above private document. (b) The sentence of the lower court on unreasonable sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) On the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, the following facts can be acknowledged if the witness E duly admitted and investigated by the court below added the witness E’s legal statement.

(1) Around September 2010, the Defendant, along with the wife X, was accommodated in the private house in the East Sea, saying, “B is a professor in the management department of the F.M. University. He will enter into a contract under the name of the Party. He/she will enter into a contract with the private house in his/her own name. He/she will pay only the annual tax value every year for his/her operation for 10 years.”

However, the defendant is true.