A. The Defendant issued a draft of the instant contract to C by miscellaneousizing facts (facing a private document forgery and uttering of a private document) and delivered the draft of the instant contract to C at the head office D Co., Ltd. with the intent to deliver a corporate seal to C, and although the Defendant did not affix a corporate seal on the E name of the instant contract, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts that recognized the Defendant as committing the crime of forging a private document and the crime of uttering of a private document.

B. The Defendant paid 5.9 million won to the victim after the instant crime was committed, and the lower court’s imprisonment (6 months of imprisonment) without considering this is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court duly adopted and examined each of the following circumstances, namely, (i) the Defendant: (a) made a confession of all the facts charged at an investigative agency and a court of first instance; (b) acknowledged that such confession was damaged by fraud to C; and (c) did not make and affix the instant contract; (b) although the investigative agency asserted that C’s mother would want to be aware of the place of payment; (c) made the instant contract by requesting a DNA certified judicial scrivener on May 26, 201; (d) made a written contract under the name of D without consent; and (e) made a written contract under the name of D at the LUdong Office operated by C around May 201; and (e) made a concrete statement that C provided the said contract to the victim at the end of the same year (Evidence No. 2 Examination of Evidence Record); (c) made a confession under the name of the Defendant or C in the original name; and (v) made no statement that the contract was made to the Defendant, the broker of the instant case, at the time of acquisition or transfer of the instant contract.