The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. On December 26, 2016, the Defendant: (a) ordered the F of the E president to delete the content of the “measures to be Taken following the change in the name of the president” (hereinafter “other discussions”) from the meeting minutes of the board of directors; and (b) deleted the content of the “measures to be taken following the change in the name of the president” (hereinafter “other discussions”).

However, the lower court rendered a judgment of conviction against the Defendant by misunderstanding the facts.

2) The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. The Defendant also asserted the same as the lower court’s judgment regarding the assertion of mistake of facts.

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, namely, the Defendant sent a draft of meeting minutes of the board of directors containing F’s e-mail or other discussions on December 27, 2017, and the Defendant did not appear to have received particular instructions from F in relation to the meeting minutes of the board of directors until submitting the meeting minutes of the board of directors, which deleted the contents of other discussions from the office of Yangyang-gun’s office on December 30, 2017; and ② The F and other directors did not fully hear from the investigative agency to the lower court the Defendant that the minutes were deleted from other discussions.

(3) In light of the fact that the Defendant voluntarily deleted the relevant part, the lower court’s conviction is justifiable. In so doing, it is reasonable that the lower court found the Defendant guilty. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the following: (a) the Defendant’s mother transferred Q Q, a mother, a construction site, to E representative director; and (b) the Defendant’s mother transferred Q, a construction site to E representative director.

3. It is favorable that the defendant is the primary offender to determine the unfair argument of sentencing.

On the other hand, the crime of this case is forged by forging the minutes of the board of directors of the social welfare foundation under the name of the chairperson and directors of E, and is forged to the office of Gyeyang-gun.