The defendant is a crime of forging private documents, uttering of a falsified investigation document, and the victim H.

In light of the fact-finding or misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant was authorized by R to prepare a monetary loan contract (Evidence No. 20 pages, hereinafter “instant contract”) in the name of R as stated in the facts charged, and H, who received the instant contract, was also aware that the said contract was prepared without authenticity.

Therefore, even though the defendant's act of preparing and using the contract of this case does not constitute the forgery of private documents and the crime of uttering, the judgment of the court below which found guilty is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts or misapprehension of legal principles which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

The punishment sentenced by the court below on unreasonable sentencing (eight months of imprisonment and ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, and the record of the public trial, the fact that the defendant actually managed the building of this case stated in the facts charged as owned by R, and R, when the criminal case of the defendant is at issue, can be acknowledged as the fact that the content of the contract of this case was ratified.

However, the fact that the Defendant indicated R’s resident registration number and address under the name of the instant contract and affixed R’s seal (Evidence Nos. 507). The fact that there was no explicit permit of R on the preparation of the contract at the time, and that the nominal owner of the contract denies the authenticity of the instant contract in a civil lawsuit with H (Seoul Southern District Court 201Gahap15507), the fact that the Defendant asserted that the authenticity of the instant contract was denied and that the Defendant was a document prepared without permission (Evidence Nos. 200-204) and that the Defendant also led to the lower court’s confession of this part of the charges.

A thorough examination of these circumstances and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor is conducted.