A. Fact-misunderstanding: (a) each of the Defendant’s names on April 12, 2011 and September 15, 201, in the name of each of the Defendant was written with signature or seal affixed at B’s request from “a condition in which the Defendant was unable to recognize the main text of the above books”; (b) the Defendant’s filing of a criminal action against B by forging a private document does not constitute false facts; and (c) did not recognize that the Defendant was false.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the facts charged of this case.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (eight months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, and eight hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the Defendant asserted to the same effect as the lower court rendered in the trial.

As to this, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s allegation and found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged, taking into account the circumstances as indicated in its reasoning, which are revealed through the evidence duly adopted and examined.

Examining the above judgment of the court below closely by comparing it with the records, the judgment of the court below is just, and the judgment below did not err by misapprehending the facts as alleged above by the defendant.

B. In full view of the grounds for sentencing indicated in the instant argument and the record, the lower court appears to have reasonably determined by fully considering the various grounds for sentencing alleged by the Defendant, and there is no special circumstance to the extent that the sentencing is modified ex post facto.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.