The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. A summary of the grounds for appeal D withdraws his/her intention to marry on June 7, 2015.

shall not be deemed to exist.

even if D may be seen to have implicitly withdrawn the intention of marriage.

Even if the defendant was aware that D had withdrawn his/her intention to marry at the time of filing the marriage report on June 8, 2015, or that he/she had the awareness and intent to exercise the marriage report against D's will.

As such, there is no intention to forge a private document to the defendant.

subsection (b) of this section.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Even if a de facto marital relationship with the victim and had the victim's intent to marry, making unilaterally the victim's intent to marry at the time of the report of marriage and making the report of marriage was stamped in the form of the report of marriage;

Even if a private document forgery or other related crime (see Supreme Court Decision 87Do399, Apr. 11, 1987). According to the records, it is recognized that the Defendant and D maintained a de facto marriage relationship between November 16, 2002 and June 7, 2015, D entered his/her name in the corresponding name column of the marriage report form in Korean and Chinese at around March 25, 2015, and delivered the Defendant with a seal affixed thereon.

However, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, D withdrawn the intention of marriage at the time of reporting the marriage on June 8, 2015.

It is reasonable to see that there was a criminal defendant's willful negligence on the part of making and exercising the marriage report against D's will at least.

It is reasonable to view it.

(1) D shall be conducted at least twice in police investigations.