A. The Defendant did not affix a seal in the name of E to the instant contract.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The Defendant asserts that, although there is a fact that he prepared a written contract under the name of E, the seal of E is not written.

However, in light of the fact that, at the time when the Defendant was investigated by the police, the investigator respondeded to the “to prepare and know the above document directly,” and that, in light of the fact that the investigator respondeded to the question “to whom the stamp was affixed and to which extent the stamp was sought,” the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

(3) The Defendant’s argument on the allegation of unfair sentencing on the grounds that the Defendant was sentenced to a fine for the same crime in 2017, but committed the instant several acts, and the Defendant’s criminal records, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is without merit, and it is not recognized that the Defendant’s argument is unfair on the grounds that the Defendant’s punishment is without merit, in full view of various circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., and the circumstances after the crime, and thus, the Defendant’s argument is without merit.

4. According to the conclusion, the defendant's appeal of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition.