The judgment below

The guilty part shall be reversed.

The Defendant is not guilty. The prosecutor of the lower judgment regarding the acquitted portion.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) 2017 Highest 1968 Case E, a misunderstanding of the facts and misunderstanding of the legal principles, affixed a seal impression directly on the instant confirmation document and the power of attorney.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below convicting this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and violating the law.

2) The misunderstanding of the facts and the legal principles pertaining to the 2017 Highest 1968 case did not intend to commit the crime by deception, since the Defendant did not receive money from the AppellantJ without any intention or ability to use it as the employee's expense from the beginning.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below convicting this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and violating the law.

B. Prosecutor 1) Fact-finding misunderstandings (non-indicted 1) complainants do not agree to the preparation of power of attorney and fair certificates in a consistent manner from an investigative agency to the court.

“The statement was made.”

Comprehensively taking account of the fact that the date of preparation of a fair certificate was July 7, 2015, the date of issuance of the certificate of seal imprint was June 26, 2015, and that the complainant borrowed KRW 250,000 from the Defendant and issued the certificate of seal imprint, the above certificate of seal imprint appears to have been issued at the time of borrowing.

If the complainant consented to the issuance of a fair deed as a substitute for the security, it is reasonable that the defendant and the complainant together prepare a fair deed, and there is no need for the complainant to prepare a power of attorney.

Rather, as the complainant, the defendant selected the company of the defendant on the ground that he borrowed money without being provided with particular security.

It is reasonable to view it.

In light of the above circumstances, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the Defendant on this part of the facts charged is erroneous.

2) The lower court’s sentence (two years of suspended sentence for one year of imprisonment) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unhutiled and unfair.

2. 2017 High Order 1968.