The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Progress of judgment;

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of all the facts charged in the instant case (a crime of occupational breach of trust, forgery of official documents, and uttering of forged official documents), and sentenced the Defendant to a suspended sentence of two years (120 hours of community service order) per year.

B. The Defendant appealed the entire charges of this case on the grounds of mistake of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and improper sentencing.

Before remanding, the court accepted the factual mistake and misapprehension of legal principles as to the crime of forging a public document and the crime of forging a forged public document, and sentenced not guilty as to each of the above crimes, and sentenced the defendant to a suspended sentence of two years (the community service order80 hours) in August, by recognizing the guilty of the crime of occupational breach of trust.

(c)

The Supreme Court’s reversal and return Defendant appealed against the guilty portion of the judgment prior to remanding the case (a crime of occupational breach of trust). The prosecutor appealed against the acquittal portion of the judgment above (a crime of forging official document and a crime of forging forged official document). The Supreme Court received the prosecutor’s appeal as to the acquittal portion, and the Defendant’s appeal as to the guilty portion is not accepted. However, the judgment prior to remand was reversed on the ground that the occupational breach of trust is one of concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act with the crime of forging official document and forging document and the crime of forging forged official document.

2. Summary of reasons for appeal;

A. In misunderstanding the facts and legal principles, the victim Air Force C (hereinafter “instant flight group”) drafted a written agreement on August 17, 2009 (hereinafter “instant agreement”) with D (hereinafter “D”) on the installation of a golf course electric cart with the victim’s air force C (hereinafter “D”). It is a quid pro quo relationship that D uses the instant agreement for a certain period of time to preserve the value of the property in lieu of paying the electronic leading cart system.

In this regard, D changes in the situation that the investment cost is increased while performing the additional work.