The judgment below

Part excluding an application for compensation order among those shall be reversed.

Each fraud against the defendant E,

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding (the part concerning the charge of forging each private document and conducting the above investigation document) by the Defendant did not forge a written confirmation in the name of W and Q and use it to E.

The document submitted by E is a document with no knowledge, and there is no fact that the defendant prepared.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous.

B. The punishment of the lower court (one year and two months of imprisonment, one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the part of each crime of fraud, fabrication of private documents, and fraud of the above investigation document against E

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court found the Defendant guilty on the following grounds: (a) on March 4, 2016, the Defendant alleged the same purport in the lower court; (b) on the grounds that E presented the instant written confirmation and obtained confirmation from W, and that E was forged; and (c) on the record of telephone conversations between E and the Defendant, the Defendant and E continued dialogue on the premise that he would prepare the instant written confirmation and receive W’s private individuals: (a) the Defendant’s private document forgery and the said written investigation document were committed.

According to the circumstances revealed by the lower court, around September 4, 2015, and around 17:35, and around 18:01, the telephone conversations between the Defendant and E (36 evidence records of high group 36:11-119 of high group 2017) revealing that: (a) the Defendant’s entry of any content in the confirmation form with the victim is confirmed; (b) the said call contents and the instant confirmation form (Evidence 36 of high group 36 of evidence records 12 of high group 2017) are consistent; and (c) the Defendant forged the instant confirmation form without the consent of Q and exercised it to E.

The judgment of the court below is just and there are errors in the misapprehension of facts alleged by the defendant.

subsection (b) of this section.

(b) there are two or more persons in whose name the ex officio decision is made;