The defendant, on July 11, 200, lent KRW 32.6 million to D on July 11, 2003, prepared a notarial deed consisting of KRW 30 million with I's existing borrowed money and KRW 80 million with the face value of the borrowed money, and received the right to sell an apartment unit (hereinafter referred to as "right to sell an apartment unit") from D as security, and there is no fact that he/she acquired the right to sell an apartment unit (hereinafter referred to as "right to sell an apartment unit of this case").

However, the letter of this case (Evidence No. 8) was delivered through I to the effect that D would be liable for the repayment of KRW 80,000,000 as stated in the above No. 30,000,000 in the above No. 30,000 in the above No. 30,000 in the amount of the No. 30,000 in the above No. 300,000 in the last time, which is likely that D would be subject to compulsory execution on the content of No. 5 of the No. 300,000 in the above No.

In addition, even though it is clearly known that the defendant did not purchase the right of sale in this case in light of the various circumstances at the time of this case, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant of the forgery of the letter of this case.

The sentence of imprisonment (eight months of imprisonment) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

Judgment

In the judgment of the court below, the defendant and his defense counsel have the same assertion as the reasons for appeal of this case, and the court below rejected the above argument in detail with the defendant's and defense counsel's arguments under the title of "decision on the defendant's and defense counsel's arguments". In comparison with the records, the judgment of the court below is just and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and affected the conclusion of the judgment, contrary to the defendant's assertion.

Therefore, it is true.