The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the gist of the grounds for appeal (the factual error) can sufficiently recognize the Defendant’s false facts as stated in the facts charged.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the judgment.

2. The summary of the facts charged is that “B or I forged Defendant’s signature to Busan District Court on January 25, 2017 and thus punished for shipping the general meeting minutes on February 17, 2016, the Defendant submitted a complaint to the public service offices of the Dong Office of the Busan District Public Prosecutor’s Office to the public service office around May 12, 2017, and on June 23, 2017, the list of participants attending the meeting minutes attached to the Busan Southern Police Station at the investigation department of the Busan Southern Police Station on June 23, 2017 was signed by the Defendant on the list related to the signature movement at the general meeting minutes of February 17, 2016, but B or I signed it on the list related to the Busan X-Spospospospospospospospospospospospospospospospospospospospospospospospospospospospos.”

However, the signature book related to the signature movement, which is one million Busan X-ray, is separate from the list of the participants of the meeting attached to the general meeting minutes on February 17, 2016, and the defendant directly signed both the above signature book and the above list of the participants, so there was no fact that B and I submitted the above signature book to the court as if it were the list of participants.

In this respect, the defendant did not appeal B and I.

3. The lower court’s judgment: (a) the Defendant stated at the police that “the signature of the list of participants present at the meeting is against the person himself/herself or other members; (b) the Defendant does not seem to have explicitly asserted that he/she would be punished by forging or using private documents regarding the list of participants present at the meeting; and (c) the Defendant explained the details of the forgery of the minutes and explained the details of the attachment of the list of participants present at the meeting in which the authentic signature is recorded.