The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

In light of the fact that the victim stated consistently on the core part related to the facts charged, etc., the lower court rendered a not-guilty verdict on this part of the facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

The punishment sentenced by the court below (limited to eight months of imprisonment, two years of probation, two years of community service, 280 hours) is too unhued and unfair.

Defendant (unfair punishment) sentenced by the lower court (limited to 8 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended execution, 280 hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

Around December 15, 2011, the summary of the facts charged by the prosecutor's argument of mistake of facts in this case was prepared by the public service center of the Seoul Western Police Station located in 14, Gangnam-dong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, and the public prosecutor's office of the Seoul Western Police Station in order to have E receive criminal punishment.

The contents of the complaint include that "A notary public located in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government shall not have the intention or ability to lend money to A, and on May 2, 2011, in the office of Jongno-gu, Jongno-gu, Seoul, notarized a promissory note that the complainant shall pay interest KRW 150 million in the face value for 20 months or longer, and shall lend 10 million in the face value to the complainant," and that a promissory note that the complainant shall pay interest KRW 100 million in the face value to 150 million in the aboveO’s name and KRW 100 million in the face value in the aboveO’s name to the complainant, immediately after receiving a notarized promissory note equivalent to KRW 100 million in the aboveO’s name and KRW 150 million in the face value in the name of the complainant, the complainant did not have the intention to lend money to the complainant, and that the complainant did not have the content of a notarized promissory note again and did not have the content of the notarial instrument."

However, the facts are as follows: from March 11, 2008 to April 8, 2008, the defendant ices the investment of shares and added up three times from E to E.