The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The subject matter of the appellate court to be tried by the appellate court is not a ground for ex officio examination, only when it is stated in the petition of appeal or is included in the statement of reasons for appeal submitted within the prescribed period, and the matters not included in the statement of reasons for appeal shall be stated in

Even if there are grounds for appeal, such as the assertion contained in the statement, cannot be deemed to exist.

(Supreme Court Decision 98Do1234 Decided September 22, 1998). In filing the instant appeal, the Defendant did not separately indicate “the scope of appeal” in the petition of appeal, and the Defendant stated to the effect that it appealed the entire judgment as stated in the statement of appeal in this court. However, the grounds for appeal submitted within the prescribed period (which was filed on November 26, 2014 and December 27, 2014) contain only the following grounds for appeal: (a) the preparation of a personal document for qualification; (b) the preparation of a personal document for qualification; (c) the use of a private document for qualification; (d) the use of a private document for fraud; and (c) the fraud of “2013No751”; and (d) the fraud of “2014Nodan1369.”

According to the above statement of grounds of appeal, among the judgment below, the preparation of private documents on qualification, preparation of private documents on qualification, display of private documents on qualification, fraud, and fraudulent act of "2013rd Group 7751" and "2014 upper group 1369" as stated in the ground of appeal, it shall be deemed that only the forgery of private documents on the real estate lease contract and the loan lease contract and the forgery of private documents and the fraud thereof are stated in the grounds of appeal. The remaining "2014 upper group 1369" shall be deemed that there is no indication of the grounds of appeal in relation to the forgery and uttering of private documents on the written consent to create a pledge right in the "2014 upper group 1369".

Therefore, among the judgment of the court below, the part concerning the fabrication of private documents and the use thereof regarding the written consent for the establishment of pledge rights in the "2014 Highest 1369" is separated and confirmed by deeming that there is no appeal by the defendant. Therefore, the scope of the judgment of this court