All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

A) With respect to the instant case 2013 high group 7232 case, the part of the instant facts charged is that “it is unlawful from July 2, 2011 to January 2, 2013,” the part of the instant private document in the instant facts charged is forged with Chapter 1, Chapter 4, and Chapter 4, and the Defendant’s date, time, place, and method of the crime are excessively comprehensively stated to the extent that it is impossible to properly exercise its right of defense.

Therefore, since the charge of forging a private document among the facts charged in the instant case was not specified, the relevant public action should be dismissed.

(2) Since Defendant did not forge the above additional construction order 1 and Chapter 4 of the drawing, Defendant did not constitute the crime of forging private documents and the crime of copying the above investigation documents. In fact, Defendant was entitled to receive construction cost equivalent to the amount of the claim for civil litigation by completing most of the second and third additional repair works as indicated in the judgment below, and thus, Defendant cannot be deemed to have been established with the attempted crime. In short, the lower court erred by misapprehending that part of the facts charged was guilty.

B) As to the 2016 Highest 595 case, Defendant did not delegate a law firm with respect to the preservation of vessel guards to the J, and accordingly, Defendant forged and exercised a contract for the management entrusted with the preservation of vessel guards L.

A false fact that the defendant filed a complaint, or had an intention of false accusation against the defendant.

However, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged.

2) The punishment of one and a half years of imprisonment sentenced by the court below which was unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine.