A. The Defendant was aware that each of the documents stated in the facts charged of this case was authentic and did not know that it was altered or forged. Therefore, there was no intention to deceive the victim by deceiving the victim by using the said documents.

Nevertheless, the lower court convicted the Defendant by misunderstanding the facts.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below on the assertion of mistake of facts, since it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant was aware that the above documents were altered or forged at the time of exercising each of the documents listed in the facts charged of this case, and that he attempted to acquire loans from the victim by arbitrarily offering another's land as security by using altered or forged documents, the court below's conviction of the above facts charged is just, and there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts as alleged by the defendant and his defense counsel.

B. In light of the fact that the Defendant attempted to acquire by deception the Defendant on the assertion of unfair sentencing, the fact that each of the instant crimes was committed during the period of repeated offense, and had the record of punishing the Defendant for the same kind of crime several times, and that the Defendant does not seem to have genuinely opposed to his mistake, and that it is not deemed that the sentence imposed by the lower court is unreasonable in view of various sentencing conditions indicated in the instant argument, including the motive and method of the instant crime, the circumstances after the crime, and the character and conduct of the Defendant.

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.