The judgment below

Of them, the forgery of a private document and the uttering of a falsified document concerning the power of issuing a certificate of personal seal impression.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant: The appellate brief dated November 14, 2018, which was submitted by a counsel for mistake of facts, states the points of unfair sentencing as the grounds for appeal. Defendant and his/her defense counsel appealed on the grounds of mistake of facts and unfair sentencing on the second trial date. However, there was no assertion on unfair sentencing in the appellate brief submitted within the period for submission of the appellate brief, and thus, the allegation on unfair sentencing cannot be deemed legitimate

1) Of the amount withdrawn by the Defendant from the passbook in the name of C in preparation for divorce with AM, part of the amount deposited by the Defendant was withdrawn from the Defendant’s account in preparation for the divorce with AM, and the remainder was withdrawn from the account with C’s permission, so there was an error of misunderstanding of facts in the judgment of the court below that recognized the Defendant’s crime of embezzlement against C even though the crime of embezzlement against C was not recognized. 2) The Defendant committed fraud against C with the victim, which was due to the Defendant’s claim against C and the unpaid wages against D (hereinafter “D”), and the Defendant received payment for the payment of the above claim and received payment for the transfer of ownership under the R apartment S, thereby committing fraud against C is not recognized. Although the Defendant’s reimbursement of the lease deposit to the revenue under the R apartment S should be excluded from the value of the property acquired by the fraud, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts of the crime of fraud against C.

In the appellate brief dated September 27, 2018, the Defendant asserted that there was an error of misconception of facts in the lower court’s judgment regarding occupational embezzlement and occupational breach of trust against the victim D among the facts constituting an offense during the original trial. However, the Defendant’s defense counsel on the second trial date on the trial date on the trial date on the trial date on the trial date on the trial date on November 14, 2018, stating the content recognizing the crime of occupational embezzlement and occupational breach of trust against