In other words, the Defendant issued a blank signed only with H as it is deemed necessary to apply for a loan, and H posted the content of the instant letter in the aforesaid blank, and affixed the seal affixed by the Defendant, thereby forging the instant letter.

Therefore, the Defendant did not file a false complaint.

The sentencing of the court below (the imprisonment of six months, the suspension of execution of two years, the community service order of two hundred hours) is too unreasonable.

As to the assertion of mistake of facts as to the grounds for appeal, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., the witness J, which was the broker of the defendant at the time of the contract of this case, was prepared in the court of the first instance on the same page with the defendant and two persons, and each of the documents prepared in the process of the contract of this case are one of the documents of this case.

“The Defendant stated to the effect that it was “,” and ② the Defendant asserted that it was only B’s written form on the balance date of the instant sales contract. However, according to the witness F’s statement, etc. by the lower court, F directly signed the seller column of each of the instant forms on the said balance date. In addition to the fact that, from the perspective of the broker, the broker and the buyer received each of the same contents, the seller and the buyer received each of the same contents, and there is no reason to obtain signature on each of the instant forms, each of the instant forms shall be written.