A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts under the victim’s permission, as the Defendant added the same phrases as the entries in the facts charged to the contract, the Defendant does not constitute alteration of the private document and the crime of uttering thereof. 2) Unjustifiable sentencing (see, e.g., circumstances of the accusation by E

B. Prosecutor’s unreasonable sentencing

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts on the grounds of the following: (a) the evidence revealed by the evidence as indicated in the judgment and the above evidence; (b) if the additional part of the written contract is indicated with the consent of the victim, the Defendant would have been urged to pay it to the victim pursuant to the written contract; and (b) in view of the content of the text message sent by the Defendant for the first time, it is unclear whether the Defendant and the victim agreed to the additional introduction cost of KRW 3 million between the Defendant and the victim; and (c) it is difficult to readily conclude that the victim consented to the additional stipulation in the written contract only by means of text message sent by the victim.

Examining the evidence adopted and examined by the court below and the circumstances appropriately explained in comparison with the records, the judgment of the court below is justified.

Defendant’s assertion of mistake is not accepted.

B. Even if the Defendant and the prosecutor consider the circumstances that are favorable to each of the grounds for appeal regarding the allegation of unfair sentencing by both parties, the lower court appears to have determined the sentence within a reasonable scope, taking full account of all the circumstances regarding sentencing.

Furthermore, there are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances to change the sentencing of the lower court after the lower judgment.

All the arguments of the defendant and the prosecutor that the sentencing of the court below is unfair are rejected.

3. The appeal filed by the Defendant and the prosecutor is groundless.