The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding 1) On September 19, 2014, related to the High Order 5103 of 2015, the letter of consultation under the name of the president of D University G (hereinafter “instant letter of consultation”) was delivered by U, and the Defendant did not forge it.

Since the Defendant believed that the written agreement in this case was true and received down payment after presenting it to the victim H, there was no intention to forge a private document, to use the document for the investigation, or to commit fraud.

2) A Chinese investor was actually engaged in a Chinese investor who decided to make an investment in C (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) in which the Defendant, related to the 2015 High Order 3859, was a general director, but the Jeju Special Self-Governing Province, which was a long-term project while the investor returned to China and did not gather an opinion, was revoked the approval of the Defendant Company’s business while organizing a long-term project in Jeju Special Self-Governing Province.

In addition, it is not U that the victim stated that “S remittances KRW 15 million to S” is not U.S. Defendant.

B. The sentence sentenced by the court below to the defendant (one year and two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, in full view of the following circumstances that can be acknowledged by the forgery of private documents, the event of the above investigation document, the fraudulent part of the judgment below and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the defendant could sufficiently be recognized that he/she acquired money from the victims by means of the direct forgery and use of the written agreement of this case.

The lower court did not err by misapprehending the facts.

A) The Defendant requested that G only a meta or consultation with a school, stating that “a school is well in consultation,” at the site of G, was requested several times (at the time, the Defendant was the intent of his meta with U.S.). Upon such request, the Defendant sent an attitude to the degree that he would give rise to a confluence to G.

G finally rejected the Defendant’s request on September 2, 2014.

B) The Defendant.