The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding: (a) the waiver of each ownership of the instant case and the written consent for the removal of the building; and (b) the agreement is not written by the Defendant, but forged or altered by F, G, H, and J.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that convicted the defendant is erroneous in the misconception of facts, although the defendant did not file a false complaint.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (the imprisonment of eight months, the suspension of execution of two years, and the burden of litigation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court also asserted the same grounds as the above grounds for appeal, and the lower court rejected the aforementioned assertion by explaining the judgment on the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion in the summary of evidence following the summary of the evidence.

The above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable.

In addition to the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts as alleged by the defendant in the judgment below.

subsection (b) of this section.

① The original cans of a written agreement cannot be found in the waiver of ownership of each of the instant cases, the written consent for the removal of buildings, and the files that have been altered.

② On July 1, 2014, the Defendant’s new road name address appears to have been known only to the Defendant, which was written in his/her own disturbance in the main disturbance of the consent letter for waiver of ownership and removal of buildings.

③ On November 27, 2014, the Defendant stated that “the consent form for waiver of ownership and removal of buildings” is written in the column for use of a certificate of seal imprint attached to the consent form for waiver of ownership and removal of buildings.

④ In the case of the instant agreement, the body of the front and back pages are identical, and the seal of the representative of the K-site corporation is affixed.

(5) The original court and the investigative agency have made a written appraisal twice, and the defendant has forged or altered the written appraisal.

The results of the appraisal that the penology of each claimed document is the defendant.

Therefore, this part of the defendant.