The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Of the facts charged in the instant case against the Defendant, the lower court, based on the title, “A construction work contract for the construction work” using a computer, the term “3. Construction Work Period: August 28, 2010 to March 25, 2011,” the lower court’s judgment on the instant facts charged against the Defendant, stating that “The Defendant is different from the construction work contract for the construction work between the lower police officer and the lower police officer from August 28, 201 to April 28, 201.”

4. Construction amount: A set of KRW 100 million per day (excluding surtax);

5. Method of payment of construction cost: Monthly payment according to the fair rate; and

6. Period of warranty liability: Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on Construction Projects (attached Table 4) shall apply.

7. The ratio of deposit for defective repair: 1% and the owner of a project (person awarding a contract) E, after entering and printing out them, which was prepared in advance by side of the name of E;

A copy of construction work contract, which is a private document on rights and obligations, was forged by sealing E’s seal, and around April 25, 201, at the construction mutual aid association Samsung branch located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Gangnam-ro 508, the construction mutual aid association issued a forged contract as if it was duly formed.

As a result, the Defendant forged and exercised one copy of the construction contract, which is a private document, “The Defendant acquitted each other on the use of the forged and falsified private document and the use of the falsified document. On November 1, 2010, the Defendant pronounced guilty on the remainder (around November 1, 2010, forgery of the private document, the use of the falsified document, the use of the falsified document, and the use of perjury). The Defendant appealed only on the guilty portion.

Therefore, since the judgment of the court below was separated and confirmed as it is, it was excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles and improper sentencing)

A. On November 1, 2010, the lower court recognized that the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine as a crime of forging a private document, the terms of the original construction contract signed on October 28, 2010, executed on October 28, 2010 by E, the mother of which representing all the actual acts on behalf of the contractor E, are as follows.

construction period: