1. The judgment below is reversed.

2. The defendant is innocent; 3. The summary of this judgment shall be published.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, who is true, misunderstanding that he had forged paper B and carried it down, shall not be loaded on.

The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty on the ground of the lack of credibility as a result of exceeding the responsibility of the defendant. The judgment below which found the defendant guilty on the ground of the above is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts.

B. The punishment of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On September 20, 2015, the Defendant shown the forgery and abolition of the right of 50,000 won, which was forged by a person who was not injured while settling a substitute B with a substitute engineer in front of the said I Office in the Car J., which was established by the Defendant around September 20, 2015.

However, it does not seem even if it is used because it is almost the same as the truth.

In this g, there is a defect in the settlement of accounts between the parties, but there is a risk burden, so that there is no benefit.

If a person is in charge of the use of a perjury, the other party is not responsible for each other, and it is safe to use a forged paper as a customary market or a test for senior citizens who have many ages in the old occupation.

“Woo,” and 50,000 Won Ba2, Mag-Mag-Mag-Mag-Mag-Mag-Mag-Mag-Mag-Ma (K) were issued to B.

From that time to November 2015, the Defendant, as indicated in the list of crimes in the attached Form, served five times in the same manner on the part of the police officers in the middle of November 2015, issued to B a total of KRW 510,000, forged 11 of the face value per share, and exercised the temporary closure of the Republic of Korea forged.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged on the grounds of the circumstances indicated in its reasoning.

(c)

However, it is difficult to accept the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

The evidence that corresponds to the facts charged in the instant case is only the statements made by B, and in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below and the court below, the statements made by B, as multiple features, fall short of credibility.