The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In collusion with A, the Defendant did not forge the certificate of completion under the name of the Director of the Jeollabuk-do Agricultural Manpower Development Institute and the certificate of completion of basic education under the name of the Director of the Gangwon-do Agricultural Technology Center (hereinafter “instant official document”).

B. The sentence of the lower court (the crime of forging each official document under Article 59(1) at the time of original adjudication: imprisonment with prison labor for one year, and the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act at the time of original adjudication: 6 months: imprisonment with prison labor for 1 year and 2013 Height 190 at the time of original adjudication: 6 months) is too unreasonable in light of all the conditions of sentencing.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. The lower court determined that, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court as legitimate adoption and investigation, namely, ① the details of the Defendant’s crime have consistently made a statement from the investigative agency to the lower court’s trial, and there is no circumstance to suspect the credibility thereof; ② the Defendant’s father and wife, who had been frequently engaged in the work at the Defendant’s request, consistently responded to passive answers as to whether the Defendant forged the instant public documents at the lower court’s court court’s trial; ③ the education or A received from the Korea Agricultural Manpower Development Institute, etc. for the reason of lack of special exchanges with A, which was not easily known as to the documents submitted while submitting “the application for the subsidy for the establishment of the visa” by the Defendant, which was submitted by the Korea Agricultural Manpower Development Institute, was in collusion with A, such as the time of original adjudication, and thus, the Defendant conspired to forge the instant public documents.

2. The above fact-finding and determination by the court below are based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, i.e., the defendant under his punishment.