The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine) The Defendant recognized the alteration and uttering of private documents among the criminal facts of the 2016 Highest 6675 case. However, there was no fact that the Defendant committed the crime of forging or uttering of private documents (abs. 2 of the facts charged and No. 3 of the facts charged) (abs. 2 of the facts charged). (c) The Defendant did not commit the crime of the 3538 Highest 2017 Highest 3538 case (abs. Forgery and use of private documents).

In other words, the Defendant’s signature of each original purchase and sale contract (in addition to two pages 1, 21, 22, hereinafter “original purchase and sale contract”) written in the facts charged in the instant case is not written by the Defendant, but the above contract is forged, and the genuine purchase and sale contract written at the time is bound on the 513th page of the investigation record (hereinafter “513th transaction contract”). (b) The sentence (two years of imprisonment) imposed by the lower court against the Defendant who was unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination as to the misapprehension of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. The circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined on the judgment on the 2016 Highest 6675 Case (the part concerning the fabrication and uttering of private documents), namely, the content of the forged transaction contract, excluding a small difference, are the same as the alteration of the transaction contract acknowledged by the defendant, and the H (B's spouse)’s seal affixed on the forged transaction contract (2016 Highest 6084) appears to be the same as the seal affixed on the previous lease contract (2016 Highest 6084) recognized by the defendant. The forged transaction contract contains a special clause that the seller repairs the apartment of this case with B's repair cost of KRW 20 million. In fact, the sale price of the apartment of this case is unilaterally unfavorable to B, such as that the sale price of this case becomes KRW 180,000,000,000 (the same shall apply), and there is no reason to conclude the sale contract as the above.