A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, the Defendant had not known that the Plaintiff had already forged a document file under the name of the Chairperson of the Financial Services Commission, which was printed out as a printer, and that the said document was forged.

Therefore, there was an intentional intent of the defendant to forge the above documents or to forge the documents and to use the forged documents.

shall not be deemed to exist.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, in the crime concerning documents under the Criminal Act as to whether the document falls under the category of a public document, it refers to a copy made by mechanical means that can continuously be seen as the original, which is an indication of intention or concept stated on the material object, or its social function and credibility, etc., which can be seen as identical with the original, which is an indication of intent or concept indicated on the material object, and its contents can be used as evidence for material facts in legal life and society (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do10468, Nov. 10, 201, etc.). Moreover, a copy of one electronic document also constitutes an act of forging documents and creating a separate document that is the object of the crime of forging documents and the crime of gambling, and the act of simply copying the forged document with an electronic copy with an electronic copy, and thus, constitutes an act of forging documents (see Supreme Court Decision 96Do785, May 14, 196, etc., presenting it to the Financial Services Commission.)

2) The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court related to the intent to forge a public document and display a forged public document;