A. Although the Defendant (a factual errors and misapprehension of legal principles) drafted the instant contract modification agreement with F with the explicit or implied consent from F, the nominal owner of the instant contract modification agreement, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of all of the charges of this case on the grounds that the Defendant was merely hearsay evidence and thus, based on the J’s testimony at the court of the lower court that has no admissibility of evidence, the statement in F, G, etc. with no credibility or credibility on November 14, 201, and other evidence lacking probative value. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on admissibility or probative value, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentencing of the lower court (two years of suspended sentence in August) is too unhued and unfair.

2. Judgment on the misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by the defendant

A. On November 14, 201, 201, the statement at the lower court court’s trial and the letter of complaint filed by J on November 14, 201, contain some contents from F and K. However, on the other hand, it cannot be deemed hearsay evidence merely because the fact that J had experienced directly before and after the formation of the instant contract modification agreement as the actual manager of E hotel before and after E’s formation of the said agreement.

B. Meanwhile, the defendant did not forge the contract modification agreement of this case. However, the defendant and the defense counsel of the court below asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal of this case, and the court below rejected the above assertion in light of the fact that the defendant has forged the contract modification agreement of this case as stated in the judgment of the court below and has exercised it. In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and contrary to the allegations of the defendant, the judgment of the court below is erroneous.