A. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unhued and unfair.

B. Defendant 1) The Defendant is deemed to be a real estate sales contract in the name G (hereinafter “instant contract”) as indicated in the facts charged.

(2) Although there was no forgery and use, the lower court accepted this part of the facts charged and convicted the Defendant. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. (2) The sentence imposed by the lower court of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s duly adopted and examined evidence of the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts: (i) G, the nominal owner of the instant contract, consistently states that no one prepared the instant contract from the investigative agency to the lower court’s court (Evidence No. 290 pages 58); (ii) E requested the Defendant to purchase real estate owned by G and paid the purchase price, etc. at the Defendant’s request; and (iii) confirmed whether G was a sales contract or a sales contract; (iv) G was entered into. G, stating that the Defendant did not enter into the instant contract or prepared the sales contract; and (v) requested the Defendant to present the sales contract to verify the facts; and (v) stated that the Defendant attached the instant contract to the accusation by facsimile (Evidence No. 185, 188, page 68, 69); and (iii) the Defendant also made a written investigation agency to prepare the instant contract with G seal affixed to him; and (v) the Defendant’s use of the instant document can be sufficiently recognized as constituting a forgery 3181,29.