The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant only changed the purpose of security C in the south-gu Forest as well as the purpose of security C at the port owned by the Defendant; and (b) there was no fact that the contract was prepared or a certificate of seal impression for sale was issued; (c) the Defendant’s accusation is consistent with objective facts; and even if not, there was no intention for the Defendant even if not, there was no loss

Although there is no room to see at all, the lower court found Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby affecting the conclusion

2. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant submitted a written complaint stating that " around September 16, 2008, the defendant borrowed KRW 20 million from C and made a provisional registration for security purpose against the defendant's ownership at the port of port of port of Daegu District Public Prosecutor's Office" at the general public service center around 17:00, and that "A was issued with a certificate of seal imprint to use the provisional registration from the defendant at the time of the time of the provisional registration and exercised the official document by using it around November 27, 2008, and thus denying the execution of the official document by using it." After receiving a supplementary investigation at the police station of the North District Public Prosecutor's Office on April 8, 201 and the office of economic1 team, the defendant requested the head of C to issue a certificate of personal seal imprint within the period of 0, stating that "It was necessary to request C to use the certificate of personal seal imprint affixed to C by means of a new document to collect the defendant's personal seal imprint."