The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than ten months.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal 1) Defendant (1) is erroneous (as to the crime of forging a private document as indicated in the judgment of the court below, and the crime of forging a private document and conducting a document in the above investigation), Defendant prepared a contract with the permission of the nominal owner, and thus does not fall under the above Article or did not intend to do so

(2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, and 240 hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

2) A victim C (hereinafter “C”) had known that the prosecutor (1) mispers the facts (1) and the victim C (hereinafter “C”) had known that “the Defendant obtained books from L Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “L”) and obtained them by means as indicated in the lower judgment,” and “the fact that a member of the North Korean club under the name of C family members would have been subject to monthly payments,” would have not purchased books from the Defendant.

Even so, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the charges on the ground that C knew of the above facts and purchased books from the Defendant, on the ground that C himself was at risk and purchased the books.

(2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unfortunate and unreasonable.

2. 1) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake, the fact that the nominal holder of the document as indicated in the lower judgment did not allow the preparation of the document under his/her name can be fully acknowledged.

① The Defendant led to confession of this part of the facts charged at the lower court.

② The nominal owners in the part 1582 of the High Court Decision 2015 J. 2015 stated that no one has lent the name in relation to the preparation of the agreement to join the North Korean club upon the police investigation (N: 2015 High Order 1582 Evidence: 267, Q:270, Q:261, U:279, V:275, V: 272, W:285). ③ The name of the nominal holders in the part 2015 High Order 649 of the High Court Decision 2015 (C's family members) was offered to the Defendant, but the Defendant, using the above name, provided monthly membership fee to C.