The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The 40% of the shares in T’s name at the time when the defendant acquired the shares in B (hereinafter “B”) from T from T is merely transferred under the name of D, and 30% of the shares in V was merely transferred under the name of C, and the actual transferee was the defendant, and as at the time of the increase in B’s capital, the defendant lent money from the bond company and appropriated it, D and C are merely the shareholders in the name of B.

Nevertheless, the court below recognized the defendant's crime of forging and uttering private documents on the premise that D and C are the true shareholders of D and C, and there is an error of law that affected the judgment by misunderstanding the facts.

(B) The written opinion submitted by a defense counsel of the defendant after the deadline for submitting the grounds for appeal shall be examined to the extent of supplement in case of appeal).

In light of the fact that the defendant does not have the same kind of power and there is no record of punishment heavier than the suspension of execution, the court below's imprisonment (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant's ex officio, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained as the prosecutor changed the indictment as stated in the facts charged from the 6th trial date to the 1st trial (the reasons for the judgment in multiple ways).

Although the judgment of the court below has the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of the court, and this is examined in the following three

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts

A. The judgment of the court below is similar to the above grounds for appeal that the defendant is merely a shareholder in the name of C and D, and according to the real estate transaction agreement (Evidence No. 190-191 of the evidence record) between B and E farming association (hereinafter “E farming”), the defendant was delegated the authority to change the name of shares or did not have the intention under the above provision.