The guilty part (including the part not guilty) shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for nine months.

A. Defendant 1) In fact, Defendant 1 (hereinafter “Defendant 1”) found Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on a different premise, inasmuch as the Defendant did not incur property damage to the Victim H by confirming the debt actually borne by the Victim H and preparing a fair bill of exchange equivalent to the amount of the debt, as stated in this part of the facts charged, by having the Defendant bear false debt equivalent to the amount of the bill of exchange as stated in this part of the facts charged, the lower court found Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on a different premise.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year of imprisonment) to the Defendant is excessively unreasonable.

B. In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor by mistake of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles (as to the portion of innocence and the main facts), the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which found the facts charged in this case and the defendant guilty only of occupational breach of trust due to the issuance of a promissory note in the name of I, L, andO, which is the ancillary facts charged, even though it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant prepared six copies of a promissory note in the name of L in the name of L in the capacity of the representative director of the K in the capacity of the K in charge of the settlement of disputes and exercised it by the attorney-at-law in charge of notarial acts, and that the fact that the aforesaid promissory note

2) The above sentence committed by the lower court to the Defendant, which was unfair in sentencing, is too unfluent and unfair.

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts

A. The gist of the facts charged in this part of the facts charged is that the Defendant was the de facto operator of H Co., Ltd., which was registered as the representative director under G’s name.

1) The Defendant, on September 3, 2013, did not bear any obligation against H, a corporation around September 3, 2013.