The judgment below

Part of the compensation order, except the compensation order, shall be reversed.

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

except that this judgment.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

The Defendant, on August 22, 201, prepared an agreement for the return of security deposit (hereinafter referred to as “agreement for the return of security deposit”) with the permission of E in relation to the name and the use of seal, with the confirmation that “where the Defendant is obliged to return the security deposit received from C, E guarantees the Defendant’s obligation to return the security deposit,” as the Defendant prepared an agreement for the return of security deposit (hereinafter referred to as “agreement for the return of security deposit”) with the victim C (hereinafter referred to as “C”) on August 22, 2011, prior to the conclusion of the piracy agreement with the victim C (hereinafter referred to as “instant piracy agreement”), and thus, the crime of forging the private document, the use of the private document, the unlawful use of the private document, and the unlawful use of the private seal is not established.

As long as the defendant presented to C an agreement on the refund of liability for the instant deposit, which is a true document at the time of entering into the instant maritime supply contract, this part of the act does not constitute deception.

In addition, at the time of concluding the instant maritime supply contract, the Defendant was sufficiently able and able to supply the sea ginseng according to the contract. However, as a result of the reversal of the instant maritime supply contract, the other party to supply the sea ginseng rapidly drops in the situation where the Defendant would have to supply the sea ginseng from C to U, thereby preventing the Defendant from performing the obligation to supply the sea ginseng under the contract. As such, the Defendant could not be deemed to have deceiving C as stated in the facts charged, thereby deceiving the Defendant to obtain the sea ginseng price of KRW 100 million.

The sentence of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) by the court below on the whole is too unreasonable.

The court below's sentence of the prosecutor (e.g., e., e., e., e.g.

Judgment

In order for the prosecutor to make an ex officio judgment, among the facts charged in the instant case, fraud, fabrication of private documents, uttering of a falsified document, illegal use of private person, and the exercise of a private user.