All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, even though each document in the name of D prepared by the Defendant cannot be deemed to have been forged or used on the ground that it did not have sufficient appearance and form to mislead the Defendant in a genuine document, and contrary to this, the Defendant committed a forgery of each document in the name of D, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, even though the Defendant did not inflict bodily injury upon the victim, nor did he did he damaged the victim, nor did he used each document in the name of D, and thereby damaged the part owned by the victim, and exercised each document in the name of D.

3) The Defendant asserts that an unreasonable sentencing sentence imposed by the lower court (the imprisonment of six months is too unlimited and unfair).

B. The prosecutor asserts that the sentence imposed by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of legal principles

A. The crime of forging a private document in the relevant legal doctrine is established in the form and appearance to the extent sufficient for the general public to enter the document in the authentic private document prepared by the nominal owner in the form and appearance to the extent sufficient for the general public to enter the document. It does not necessarily require the signature or seal of the person who prepared the document. However, whether it is sufficient for the general public to enter the document in the real private document prepared by the nominal owner should be determined by taking full account of the form and appearance of the document, as well as various circumstances, such as the process of preparation, type, content, and transaction

(See Supreme Court Decision 95Do2221 delivered on December 26, 1997). B.

Judgment

The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the lower court, i.e., D.