A. The sentence of a fine of KRW 7 million imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor (1) by the prosecutor, theO was not aware of the capital increase and issuance of new shares as an actual shareholder E of the corporation, and ultimately, it can be sufficiently recognized that all documents in the name of theO in this case were written against the O’s will.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted each of the facts charged in this case as to the forgery of private documents and the uttering of falsified documents, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) The above sentence, which the court below rendered unfair sentencing, is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. We examine the prosecutor's assertion of mistake as to the facts, i.e., the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., (i) theO appeared as a witness in the court of original judgment and confirmed documents related to the increase of capital around June 13, 2014 (see, e.g., evidence No. 2015 high group No. 401, Apr. 1, 2015) and testified to the effect that it did not take measures such as suspending loans by raising an objection to the lending institution (see, e.g., Supreme Court records No. 150, Apr. 1, 200); (ii) theO frequently contacted with the employees of the above company before being registered as its inside director; and (iii) it appears that it was efforts to receive the order if the above company begins to install facilities (see, e.g., Grade 254, 255 high group No. 401, Apr. 17, 2017).