The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding and legal doctrine 1) Of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant’s use of each of the instant investigation documents is not limited to the scope of the Defendant’s defense because the date, time, place, and method that the Defendant forged the instant “written delegation confirmation” and the “written confirmation on the implementation of commitments” (hereinafter “each of the instant documents”).

Therefore, this part of the indictment is illegal.

2) Each of the documents of this case was prepared by F, a nominal person, and the defendant did not have forged them.

Therefore, the Defendant’s use of each of the instant documents does not constitute a crime of aiding and abetting the above investigation documents.

3) Even if each of the instant documents was forged, this is not an attempted crime, since it was not adopted as evidence in relevant civil cases and did not affect the outcome of the trial.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. Among the facts charged in the instant case, the time and date of the crime under Article 254(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which provides for the specific method of the exercise of each of the above investigation documents, requires a statement to the extent that does not conflict with the period of double prosecution or prescription. The place requires a statement to the extent that it is possible to assess the jurisdiction of the land, and the method requires a statement to the extent that the elements of the crime are specified. The purport of the law requiring the specification of the facts charged lies in limiting the scope of the defendant's defense to facilitate the exercise of defense by limiting the scope of the defendant's defense, so the facts charged are sufficient to be stated to the extent that it is recognizable to the extent that the facts in question are different from the other facts (see Supreme Court Decision 94Do2687, Jan. 12, 195, etc.). In light of these legal principles, each of the facts charged in the instant case.