A. The six-month imprisonment sentenced by the court below is too unhued and unfair.

B. Defendant 1) As to the facts constituting the crime listed in paragraph (1) of the judgment of the court below based on the erroneous determination of facts, the Defendant is a waiver of the following purport: (a) As to the facts constituting the crime listed in paragraph (1) of the judgment of the court below, the Defendant: (b) stated the content and printed by C, “A delegate all disposal authority

(2) The phrase “a merculation” refers to a merculation stating in the merculation that no signature is signed and that “a removal shall be completed by October 7, 201 if the removal is decided by September 23, 201” (hereinafter referred to as “merculation”).

(2) The court below found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the premise that the Defendant signed each of the above waiver and domain book, and found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. Such judgment of the court below is erroneous in misapprehending the facts, even if the charges of unfair sentencing are all found, the court below sentenced the Defendant to the punishment in light of the circumstances of the instant case, even if it is found that the charges of unfair sentencing are guilty.

2. The following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined in the court below's decision on the Defendant's assertion of mistake of facts, i.e., (i) in the case of a waiver letter, the Defendant denies the Defendant's signature, but the Defendant's signature on the other lease agreement in 2010 (in the case of a waiver letter, the signature on the other lease agreement in 2010) appears to be considerably similar to the Defendant's own land, but the Defendant's signature on the other lease agreement in 2010 did not have signed it. However, the Defendant's continuous lease agreement which has renewed each year is not itself signed on the other lease agreement in 2010.