A. In order to verify that there was a mistake of the fact that there was a sales contract, the statement by the witness E of the court below that the purchase price, etc. was affixed with a blank seal on the sales contract, and the evidence, including this, submitted by the prosecutor, can be acknowledged as the facts charged for forging private documents concerning the real estate sales contract in the name of E and the uttering

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged, which erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The fine of KRW 10 million imposed by the lower court on the Defendant is too unjustifiable and unjust.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. The judgment of the court below on the assertion of mistake of facts was made by attending the court of the court below as a witness and making a statement to the effect that E himself/herself has stated the phrases and affixed a seal on the above sales contract, but the court below reversed several statements without consistency in the questions of the prosecutor, defense counsel, and presiding judge, and judged that it is difficult to believe such statements. In addition to the facts pointed out by the court below, if E requires the Defendant to enter the real purchase price without allowing the Defendant to enter a discretionary amount in the sale price column, then E’s statement that conforms to the above facts charged is without probative value to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt that the above facts charged are true, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the facts charged.

B. The defendant's decision on the assertion of unfair sentencing is based on the name of H (the defendant was written in Q).