The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, each contract for long-term lending and borrowing of products at issue in the instant case (hereinafter “each of the instant revised contracts”) was actually forged by H, and thus, the Defendant did not report false facts to the investigation agency. Moreover, the Defendant did not directly seal each of the instant revised contracts or instruct the employee to affix his/her seal, thereby filing a complaint with H with the conviction that H gave rise to the Defendant’s failure to do so. Therefore, the Defendant did not have any intention to make a false accusation.

B. The punishment of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, each of the instant modified contract was directly stamped by the Defendant on the column “B” of each of the above contracts, and affixed his name seal on the name side of his name.

Since it is reasonable to see that the defendant reported false facts to an investigative agency as stated in the judgment of the court below, and sufficiently recognizes the fact that he did not know H.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

① From the investigative agency to the court of the court below, H made a statement to the effect that “The process of preparing the written amendment of each of the instant amendment contracts” was “after having consulted with the Defendant in advance and having directly returned to the Defendant to the Defendant and affixed the seal on the written amendment of each of the instant amendment contracts.” In addition, the above statement is very specific and consistent, and it is confirmed that the e-mail was perused by the Defendant around that time, on November 10, 201, which was sent by H to the Defendant by November 10, 201, prior to the preparation of each of the instant contracts.

As to this, the Defendant stated at the time of the prosecution investigation that “not himself/herself, but the employee perused the above e-mail,” but it is difficult to believe the above e-mail.