A. According to the witness’s testimony contents and other evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the court below acquitted the defendant of this part of the charges although the defendant forged the clan resolution dated May 16, 2004 and the minutes of May 25, 2004 as stated in this part of the charges, and sufficiently recognized the fact that each exercised it, as stated in this part of the charges, although the court below acquitted the defendant of this part of the charges. The court below erred in the misapprehension of facts and affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. As to the crime of forging and uttering of a private document, the defendant (misunderstanding of facts as to the part concerning the crime of forging and uttering of the above investigation document, the defendant was entrusted with the legitimate authority to prepare each document listed in the attached Table Nos. 1 through 9 and 12 through 21 on May 25, 2004 through a clan general meeting on May 25, 2004. Thus, even if the defendant prepared each of the above documents and submitted them to the competent authority as stated in this part of the facts charged, it cannot be said that the crime of forging and uttering of the above investigation document is not established. ② The defendant prepared and submitted to AF a written consent to use the land listed in the attached Table No. 11 on January 2, 2006, but there was no fact that the defendant prepared and delivered to L on August 31, 2004, and the defendant did not appear to have obtained the consent to use the land from QG representative of the clan of this case on March 12, 2004.

(2) On March 12, 2004, the Defendant obtained permission for the use of AG land from Q, the president of a clan on March 12, 2004, and concluded a lease agreement with L on August 23, 2004, and thereafter filed a lawsuit for rent claim against L due to L’s failure to pay rent.