The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. 1) The Defendant, who committed the crime of forging a private document and the crime of gambling an investigation document as indicated in the lower judgment, was comprehensively delegated by C with respect to the sale, development, and sale of real estate (hereinafter “instant real estate”) recorded in the facts constituting an offense as indicated in the lower judgment. Therefore, even if the Defendant prepared a document in the name of C, it does not constitute the foregoing Article.

Even if there was no explicit delegation of C

Even if the document prepared by the defendant was ultimately for C's interest, and there was an estimated consent.

must be viewed.

2) The Defendant holding in the lower judgment is capable of developing the instant real estate in fraud.

Since there was a belief and justifiable reason to believe as such, the defendant did not have a deception, and the victim D himself/herself investigated about the development project and then concluded a sales contract, so the victim was not a dispositive act due to an error.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. Although the appellate court’s judgment on the lower court did not have a new objective reason that could affect the formation of a documentary evidence during the trial process, when it intends to re-examine the first instance judgment after re-evaluation of the first instance judgment, there are reasonable circumstances to deem that the first instance judgment was clearly erroneous, or that the argument leading to the acknowledgement of facts is considerably unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules, etc. Furthermore, without such exceptional circumstance, it should not be said that the first instance judgment on the acknowledgement of facts was without permission (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017). No objective reason exists that may affect the formation of a documentary evidence in the first instance trial based on the foregoing legal doctrine, and there was no objective reason that could affect the formation of a documentary evidence in the first instance trial, and the lower court duly adopted and investigated the first instance court.