The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

However, the period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. A. The Defendant and E did not specify the contract price for the telecom between the Defendant and the Defendant, and the Defendant, even though they did not consent to the preparation of a standard contract for private construction works, arbitrarily forged the contract under the name of the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant does not report false facts.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal, and the lower court rejected the above assertion in detail by providing a detailed judgment on the above argument under the title “judgment on the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion” in the judgment. We affirm the judgment of the lower court by comparing the above judgment with the records.

In this context, considering the reasoning behind the preparation of multiple contracts related to the construction of unmanned telecom, the Defendant’s seal affixed to the company with the Defendant’s consent at the time of the preparation of the contract, and the circumstances leading up to the signing of the contract, etc., as well as whether the Defendant actually bears the obligation to pay the construction cost of the new construction of the unmanned telecom in accordance with the standard contract for construction works, it can be acknowledged that the Defendant consented to E in preparing the standard contract for the construction work of the private telecom.

Therefore, even though the defendant consented to the preparation of the standard contract for the above private construction work, E has forged it.

The charges of this case, which reported false facts, are found guilty, and there is an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding facts in the original judgment.

Therefore, the defendant's mistake of facts is without merit.

B. As to the wrongful argument of sentencing, the defendant of this case.