The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles and improper sentencing)

A. The Defendant and the defense counsel admitted non-liability evidence as evidence of conviction, along with the following assertion of misunderstanding of facts:

In doing so, there are arguments for misunderstanding of the legal principles due to violation of the rules of evidence, but this is eventually considered to be included in the issue of fact finding, so it is also judged in the part of judgment on fact finding.

1) Around August 2013, at the same time, the representative of D Limited Corporation (hereinafter collectively referred to as “D”) was appointed by adding up before and after the change of the company name.

G that paid 1/4 of the acquisition price under a contract entered into between E and G (hereinafter “the acquisition price of this case”) shall have the authority to change the statutory representative, etc., and the Defendant changed the name, etc. of the legal representative and the company according to G’s intent. Therefore, the Defendant forged a private document.

shall not be deemed to exist.

2) E left the D Corporation’s seal impression, etc. to H and left the Republic of Korea back to the Republic of Korea, and the Defendant’s change of the name, etc. of the statutory representative and the company was based on the implied consent or constructive consent of E and forged a private document.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Moreover, since H directly participated in each of the above changes process, E can be seen as impliedly consenting to all of the above circumstances.

B. The lower court, by misapprehending the legal doctrine, adopted the J’s written statement as evidence of conviction against the Defendant, and stated in the said written statement that “The Defendant received instructions from the Defendant to change the name of D legal representative and the company, and subsequently, the Defendant’s non-indicted K did not mean that the name of D legal representative and the company was changed to F.

“The part constitutes a full statement, and the statement or preparation was made under particularly reliable circumstances.”

The admissibility of evidence shall not be recognized.

Therefore, the court below violated the rules of evidence.