The judgment below

The guilty part against Defendant D is reversed.

Defendant

D. A person shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

(b).

The lower court found Defendant D not guilty of the charge of forging the private document under H and the uttering of the above investigation document under the name of H among the facts charged in the instant case, and only Defendant D appealed, and the prosecutor did not appeal.

Therefore, the scope of the trial of the party shall be limited to the guilty part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant D.

The summary of the grounds for appeal is that Defendant B (misunderstanding of facts and improper sentencing) was not involved in or instructed to destroy the office entrance as described in the facts charged by Defendant A and C, jointly with the lower court, and thus, the Defendant is not an accomplice.

The punishment sentenced by the court below which is unfair in sentencing (3 million won) is too unreasonable.

Defendant

D (misunderstanding of facts and improper sentencing) A. In addition, unlike the defense counsel's assertion that the sentencing is unfair for a private person's forgery and use of a criminal investigation, the defendant asserts that the defendant is erroneous in the reasons for appeal.

In consideration of the following circumstances, the Defendant did not arbitrarily forge the seals in the name of the J building owner stated in the facts charged (hereinafter referred to as “instant seals”).

With the consent of the nominal owner, the seal in this case was created as a civil petition for the benefit of the whole aggregate building.

The defendant obtained the consent of the nominal holder and used only the seal of the nominal holder who sent the support slip at the time of election as the representative of the management group.

Although the complainant has actively participated and filed a civil petition, it goes beyond the responsibility of the defendant.

If the Defendant forged the instant seal, the Defendant retired the representative of the Aggregate Building Normalization Promotion Committee (hereinafter referred to as the “Standing”) and did not look at the instant seal in T having AR, AS, EL, etc., and the Defendant filed a complaint against the instant seal for three years to pressure the Defendant.

c) the forgery of private documents; and