A. The Defendant-Appellant forged a document as if he purchased the vehicle under the name of the Defendant regardless of the Defendant’s intent.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (three million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, i.e., the defendant directly affixed his/her signature and seal on the applicant column on August 21, 2014 on the HK AUTO-LON application agreement (hereinafter “instant loan application”) with the purpose of purchasing the said vehicle: ② After that, P, who is an employee of HK Savings Bank, made a telephone conversation to the defendant and confirmed the contents of the instant loan application; ③ the defendant paid the first installment of the loan to HK Savings Bank; ③ the defendant was aware that he/she entered into the instant loan application at the time of the second police investigation; ③ the defendant stated that the Defendant, as stated in the facts charged, had the Defendant purchase the said vehicle and made the instant loan application under the name of the defendant, but reported the fact that he/she was subject to criminal punishment and made a false report to H for the purpose of criminal punishment.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is just, and the defendant's assertion of mistake is not accepted.

B. Although there are no circumstances to consider the circumstances of the instant crime as to the assertion of unfair sentencing, the following facts are favorable to the Defendant: (a) the Defendant did not receive criminal punishment due to the instantless crime; and (b) the Defendant did not have any criminal record identical to that of the Defendant; (c) on the other hand, the crime of false accusation harms the proper trial function of the State’s penal authority; and (d) the Defendant was subject