The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (related to each of the above investigation documents as indicated in the judgment of the court below) G and J instigated the Defendant to forge each of the cash custody certificates as indicated in the judgment of the court below (hereinafter “certificate of cash custody”). Accordingly, since the Defendant forged a certificate of cash custody and delivered it to G and J, the above investigation document execution crime is not established as to the issuance of a forged certificate of cash custody to G andJ.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (the penalty amounting to five million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Considering the difference between the spirit of substantial direct psychological principle and the first instance court and the appellate court’s method of evaluating the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court, the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court was clearly erroneous in light of the content of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined in the first instance court.

In light of the above legal principles and the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the court below, if it is not deemed significantly unfair to maintain the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court, the appellate court should not reverse without permission the first instance judgment on the sole ground that the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court is different from the appellate court's judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4994, Nov. 24, 2006). In light of the aforementioned legal principles and the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, G and J have instigated the defendant to forge the cash custody certificate of this case.

In addition, it is difficult to see that he/she was unaware of the forgery.

It is reasonable to view it.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion.