All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In full view of the prosecutor’s (1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, each police interrogation protocol against K is admissible as evidence under Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and in full view of the above K’s statements and other evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant ordered K to forge or use private documents.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the part concerning the forgery and uttering of private documents among the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

(2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too unhued and unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence is too too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal principle

A. (1) Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act (hereinafter “the Act”) adopts the principle of substantial direct cross-examination and the hearsay rule that the formation of a conviction against the substance of a case must be conducted through the examination of evidence guaranteed by the cross-examination in the presence of a judge in order to realize the principle of due process required by the Constitution in a criminal procedure, and, in special circumstances where the aforementioned principle cannot be achieved due to the death of the person making the original statement, the purpose is to exceptionally recognize admissibility of evidence only when there is little room for false intervention in the preparation of the content or protocol of the statement, or documents, and there is no specific and external circumstance that guarantees the credibility or voluntariness of the contents of the statement.

Therefore, in order for the court to admit admissibility of evidence under Article 314 of the Act, it is not sufficient that there is no clear procedural error in the process of preparing the statement or protocol or there is no specific circumstance to suspect the voluntariness of the statement.