A. Compared to the mistake of facts, the complainant's permission or approval was granted to the defendant for the additional entry of the instant service cost payment agreement in question. The complainant permitted the defendant to use G(5) employee identification, etc. The complainant's statement is not reliable, and the use of the altered document against the altered person is extremely exceptional in light of the empirical rule. The service cost can be sufficiently confirmed if there is no agreement on the service cost in this case. In light of this, the defendant is innocent.

B. In light of the background leading up to the instant crime, etc., the sentence of the lower court against the Defendant (one month of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and adopted by the court below, i.e., ① the original copy of the instant agreement for payment of service costs (No. 1, No. 429, 430 of the Investigation Record) is printed (printed) or among them, the Defendant’s signature and seal, “1,00,000 won,” and the Defendant’s signature and seal, “3,000,000 won,” and “3,000,000,0000,0000 won,” and “3,” and “H’s signature and seal” as indicated in the column of “9,000,000,000 won,” and the signature and seal of the representative director of G corporation and “H” are affixed first to the right side of the signature and seal of the Defendant, and the signature and seal of the Defendant in the form of a correction agreement may be affixed to all of the terms and conditions of consent.”