The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant: (a) did not delegate the victim with the signature and seal on behalf of the Defendant in the “first agreement” prepared between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s executive members of the D Dae-dong Association and the Plaintiff’s Association of Souls, and thus, it is not false to file a complaint with the Defendant for the charge of forging private documents; (b) however, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby finding the Defendant guilty

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the judgment of the court below and the trial court, ① village executives, including the defendant, agreed to install a livestock excreta treatment plant in the village following the visit of the livestock excreta treatment plant in other regions, and the two money associations agreed to that effect. The victim of April 27, 2009 entered into the first agreement and signed it on the said date on the side of the two money associations and printed it on the said date. In fact, the date on which the above agreement was signed and sealed was stated on April 25, 2009 and around April 26.

(Evidence No. 844) The facts recorded on April 30, 2009 (Evidence No. 844) were recorded (Evidence No. 49), ② the village conference was opened on April 30, 2009, and the defendant was present at the large conference (in particular, no objection was expressed at the time), and most residents (in 20 or fewer persons) who were present at the time agreed to the attraction of livestock excreta treatment plants. ③ The village executives including the defendant around the time of the instant case were delivered from the victims the amount of KRW 50,000 to KRW 1,000,000,000,000 from the victims (in all, they were punished for breach of trust). ④ After the instant case, all residents of the village were in the field of livestock excreta treatment facilities in another area, and there were many opposing opinions among residents, including the defendant, around August 2, 2010, who opposed to the attraction of livestock excreta treatment plants.