A. 1) As to the alteration and the uttering of a private document, the Defendant did not have the intent to alter and exercise the private document.

2) There was no intention to obtain fraud with respect to fraud.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court against an unfair defendant in sentencing (the imprisonment of eight months, the suspension of the execution of two years, and the community service order of 80 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the crime of altering a private document is established when there is a risk of undermining public trust by causing a person without authority to change the content of the document under another person’s name to the extent that the identity is not undermined (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do14587, Sept. 29, 201). The purpose for the crime of alteration of a document refers to the purpose of using the altered document as a true document as if it were a true document, without active intent or final recognition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do788, Jan. 26, 2006). According to the evidence duly examined by the court below, it is sufficient to view the Defendant as a joint and several surety at the place of the order of this case that “Seoul High Court Order 10Do14587, Sept. 29, 201; b)” as an order for the completion of construction of the document.

Therefore, although the defendant completed L's L's buildings, it was intended to make the above entry with the intention of provisional seizure.