The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On July 2013, the Defendant: (a) issued a provisional attachment of 4 bonds located in Shicheon-si located in Shicheon-si; (b) provided it at E’s request; and (c) accordingly, (d) received a written agreement in the lower judgment (hereinafter “instant agreement”) from E around October 2013; and (e) accordingly, the Defendant did not forge the instant agreement.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant asserted the same purport as the above argument in the lower court, and the lower court rejected the above assertion by explaining the grounds for its determination.

2) Although there is no new objective reason to affect the formation of a documentary evidence in the trial process, when the appellate court intends to conduct a re-evaluation of the first instance judgment and ex post facto determination, there is a reasonable ground 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. In addition, the appellate court should not reverse without any such exceptional circumstance (Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031 Decided March 22, 2017) the first instance judgment based on the foregoing legal doctrine, and there is no objective reason to affect the formation of a documentary evidence in the trial, and it does not seem that maintaining the lower court’s judgment is remarkably unfair when compared the evidence duly examined by the lower court with the content of the lower court.

4) Defendant’s assertion of mistake is without merit.

B. In order to prevent the Defendant from exercising his/her rights as to the wrongful assertion of sentencing, the Defendant’s act of forging documents in the name of E and submitting them to the court is not somewhat weak.

(b).