A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, the promissory note in this case was prepared by G on the ground of the Defendant’s obligation of KRW 400 million. G had the motive to escape the above promissory note by forging each of the instant notes, and most suspected facts charged by the Defendant were indicted by the prosecution, and there was no reason to dismiss G only this part of the instant notes. If each of the instant notes was duly prepared, G was delivered to the Defendant in exchange for a promissory note, even though G was delivered to the Defendant on the following day after the delivery of the promissory note, and G did not have any credibility of G’s statement, and it was not proven that G did not forge each of the instant notes.

B. The lower court’s imprisonment (six months of imprisonment) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence produced by mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s defense that each of the instant reports was forged by G and, even if not, the Defendant believed that G was forged, and filed a complaint against G to the effect that G was not intentional, and found the Defendant guilty of criminal facts.

(A) On July 7, 2009, the Defendant and G prepared a written agreement with the effect that G will have a dividend of KRW 1.9 billion, which is to receive I, a mortgagee of the instant agreement with respect to the instant agreement, divided into KRW 1.5 billion and KRW 400 million (hereinafter “instant agreement”), and that the Defendant will have a share of KRW 1.5 billion (hereinafter “instant agreement”). The same month following that date.

8. The agreement has been certified, and the defendant and G have been awarded a successful bid to J on June 27, 201, and the defendant and G had the amount of 1.6 billion won as dividends. Accordingly, according to the agreement of this case, the above dividends were divided into the defendant and G in proportion to 4:15. At the time there was no trace that the defendant raised an objection against them.

(B) The corporate director director of the LABD shall in fact be the director.