The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, as stated in the lower judgment, did not affix a seal to the building design agreement (hereinafter “the instant design agreement”) of H association (hereinafter “the instant association”), and the F and I forged the instant design agreement using the instant seal, and there was no fact that F and I merely submitted such fact on the complaint, and there was no omission of F and I.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (eight months of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the first instance court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant’s accusation of F and I as a crime of forging private document is false. Therefore, the lower court’s judgment convicting the Defendant of the instant facts charged is justifiable.

The above assertion by the defendant is without merit.

(1) According to each statement of reply to facts in the Supreme Prosecutors' Office, each statement of reply to the facts of this case is likely to place a seal affixed to the front of the design contract of this case and the name of the association of this case, which is between the front of the design contract of this case and the front of the design contract of this case submitted by the defendant, with a seal affixed to the association of this case on the front of the design contract of this case. As long as each of the above design contract of this case is affixed on the front of the second part of the design contract of this case, and the seal affixed to the association of this case is affixed to the owner column of the design contract of this case, barring special circumstances, it is likely that the

② On March 4, 2013, the Defendant needs to deliberate on construction at a coffee shop operated by the Defendant, etc., and thus, the instant union is limited to the design contract sign.