A. misunderstanding of the facts and legal principles: (a) the Defendant and I wanted to be the cooperation at the time of the preparation of the instant contract; (b) the Plaintiff had already affixed the corporate seal impression on the key part of the contract; (c) the Defendant had been working in a certified judicial scrivener office prior to the instant case, and was merely recorded in an in-depth part of the jurisdiction of the instant contract; and (c) in the case of a contract on July 4, 2013, written after the lapse of the date of the preparation of the contract, the investigative agency recognized that the contract was made for the purpose of financing; and (d) the statement of I andO as shown in the facts charged is without credibility, such as the process of calculating the contract price and the scope of construction; and (e) the Defendant did not have any error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the instant contract, which did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the motive and scope of construction work; and therefore, (d) the Defendant did not make a detailed estimate of the instant contract after the completion of the contract.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the difference between the spirit of the principle of direct deliberation and the first instance trial and the method of evaluating the credibility of the appellate trial, the first instance court’s statement made by the witness of the first instance trial in light of the contents of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined in the first instance trial.