The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months.

except that this judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) As the Defendant, who is a nominal holder of a document, revised the termination date of the work period of the aggregate production agreement written between B and M (hereinafter “instant agreement”) with the consent of M Co., Ltd., and thus, Defendant’s act does not constitute alteration of a private document.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (two years of imprisonment with prison labor for one year suspension, two years of community service order, one hundred and twenty hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”)’s punishment (hereinafter “criminal penalty amounting to KRW 10 million) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In addition to the circumstances revealed by the lower court as to Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court and the trial court (i.e., at the time of the alteration of the instant agreement, the Defendant did not enter into a subcontract for the production of additional aggregate between AL and M in around March 2015, which was the time of the alteration of the instant agreement, and (ii) the Defendant heard the statement that the Defendant would have to additionally produce aggregate at the O on-site from the Z, the head of the division in charge of AL, a corporation, around March 2015, to the effect that “AL would prepare the report procedure related to the selection of aggregate,” stating that “AL would have contacted the head of the M site M of the said corporation, which was performing the said construction after entering into a subcontract with AL, to the effect that the part on the completion of the working period of the instant agreement has been altered from the investigation agency to the trial to the trial, and that U.S will report the extension of the Defendant’s production of aggregate by telephone around March 20.

Although the facts approved by the court have been consistently stated to the purport that “the defendant has not been permitted to revise the part on the last day of the work period of the instant agreement” (Article 1, 251, 251, 5, 2140, 2277 of the investigation record, 10 pages of the witness examination record, 10 pages of the witness examination record), and X-do representative director of M.