The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error of facts and misapprehension of legal principles 1) As to the alteration of private documents among the facts charged in the instant case and the uttering thereof, the Defendant is only the receipt in this part of the facts charged (hereinafter “the receipt in this case”).

(2) As to attempted fraud in the facts charged in this case, it cannot be deemed that the contents of the receipt were changed by stating “G and H” in the right upper gap, the above act of the Defendant does not constitute “the alteration.” As such, the Defendant thought that the attorney fees of the instant receipt were the part to be borne by G, and thus, the Defendant did not have any intent to alter. As such, the Defendant did not have any intent to commit fraud. Even if such alteration is recognized, even if the Defendant’s act was deemed to be an alteration, it is presumed that the Defendant’s act would have been naturally accepted if he knew of the circumstances that the attorney fees, E, etc., who is the title holder of the above receipt, should actually bear the burden of G. As such, the illegality should be dismissed. (2) As to attempted fraud in the facts charged in this case, the Defendant understood the attorney fees, design expenses, and waste disposal expenses to be paid by the victim G as the advance payment for the purchase price, and thus, the Defendant brought a lawsuit in this case, which

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles and misconception of facts that judged all of the facts charged of this case guilty.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant’s use of the instant receipt by altering it with intent to alter it is sufficient.