The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant: (a) delegated the authority to dispose of the real estate (hereinafter “the instant transaction agreement”) as indicated in the lower judgment by D and F (the Defendant’s former address of the Defendant with interest on D’s father) with respect to the transaction agreement (hereinafter “the instant real estate”); and (b) drafted the instant transaction agreement; and (c) did not constitute forgery of the said transaction agreement.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

B. misunderstanding the legal principles on the name of the crime subject to the application, even if the Defendant did not obtain a delegation from D or F to dispose of the instant real estate, and prepared the instant transaction agreement.

Even if the defendant is qualified as a representative of D and prepares a sales contract, the name of the crime should not be the crime of forging and accompanying private documents, but be the crime of preparing private documents for qualification and accompanying private documents.

(c)

The punishment of the court below (eight months of imprisonment) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant was entrusted with the authority to dispose of the instant real estate by D stated in the instant sales contract as the seller in the lower court’s court judgment on the assertion of mistake of fact.

The argument was made by the F, the former domicile of the Defendant with interest on D, as well as D in the court of the first instance, and was delegated by F, the above disposition authority.

The argument is asserted.

First, in full view of the various circumstances described by the lower court in detail from the 3rd page 12 up to the 4th page 15th page of the lower judgment, the Defendant was delegated by D with the authority to dispose of the instant real estate.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Next, (F) Based on the assumption that the Defendant had the authority to dispose of the instant real estate owned by FD, the following facts are examined: (i) the Defendant was delegated by F with the authority to dispose of the instant real estate from F; (ii) the circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court.