The judgment below

The guilty portion shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

(2) the date of this judgment.

In light of the following circumstances in light of the gist of the grounds for appeal, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which convicted the Defendant as to the use of a private document, such as forgery, use of a falsified document, use of a falsified document, and electronic records, and the use of a false official electronic record, among the facts charged in the instant case.

The facts charged in this part of the facts charged are that I independently committed, and the Defendant merely heard from I the phrase “it is necessary to keep the G’s seal impression for negotiation upon divorce with G, the Defendant’s wife, and upon I’s request, affix the G seal impression and the certificate of seal impression to I.

In other words, the defendant believe that he will keep only the word of "I" and held that G's seal imprint and certificate of his seal imprint. Thus, the defendant shall forge the agreement of the establishment of the right to collateral security and the power of attorney.

It was never anticipated at all.

The Defendant was unaware of the fact that I forged or exercised the agreement on the creation of the instant right to collateral security and the power of attorney, and further was unaware of the fact that I had completed the registration on the establishment of the right to collateral security in the future.

The sentence that the court below sentenced the defendant with regard to the guilty portion (two years of suspended sentence for one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

In light of the following circumstances by the prosecutor, the court below acquitted the prosecutor on the charge of false accusation among the facts charged in the instant case.

This part of the facts charged was pronounced not guilty on the ground that the witness I was absent from the witness 14 times or summons for about one year and eight months, and thus failing to undergo the procedure for verifying the establishment of a petition, the admissibility of evidence was not given, such as “I’s statement and copy of the loan at the investigation stage,” and thus, the evidence was not given.

In addition, there is a statement that the defendant makes a confession as a suspect in a case without accusation in the prosecutor's office (No. 885 of the evidence record No. 885), and there is no objection to the above investigation procedure, and there is no special circumstance.