The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles do not have any fact that the Defendant prepared a labor contract form with D or entered “E” in the name of the Defendant in the labor contract form, and thus, the instant labor contract form was forged, and the F personnel G and employment interview were conducted around July 11, 2019, and the instant certificate of entry and discharge was prepared in falsity.

Therefore, the Defendant did not report false facts as stated in the facts charged in the instant case.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year and two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court, based on the same argument as the reasons for appeal in this part of this part, rejected the argument and its determination by the Defendant and the defense counsel in detail under the title “determination of the Defendant’s assertion”.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are justified.

On the other hand, the defendant alleged that he did not have any intention since he filed each of the instant complaints for confirmation of facts. However, in light of the background of the instant crime, the contents of each of the written complaints, the defendant's investigative agencies and the contents of statements in the court, etc., it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant filed a complaint with the aim of having the defendant be subject to criminal punishment.

Therefore, the defendant's rejection of the defendant's attempt to avoid the crime like the facts charged in this case and his intention is recognized, and the judgment below does not contain any errors of misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as alleged by the defendant, and the above assertion by the defendant

B. Compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.