All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1’s mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) As to each private document’s above Article, the Defendant merely attached the “written consent” prepared by the Defendant with the name of the participants in the meeting signed by H, I, J, K, and L, which led to the crime of forging a private document. Such an act does not constitute “a forgery” in the crime of forging a private document.

B) As the defendant prepared an application for approval of a forest management plan and submitted it to the office of the office of the Macheon-gun, there was no lack of qualification for the representative of the above G clan, since he was in the position of representative of the G clan at the time of submission.

C) On December 1, 2013, the general meeting of the D clan clans that appointed Q Q as the president (hereinafter “instant clans”) with respect to interference with its business, has no effect on the ordinary meeting of the members of the D clans. Thus, the call of the clans' general meeting on December 21, 2014 by a person who is not a legitimate clan representative does not constitute a business subject to protection of the crime of interference with business, since it does not have any legal value to protect.

2) The lower court’s sentence against an unfair defendant in sentencing (two months of imprisonment with prison labor for each private document forgery, the preparation of and accompanying to private documents, and the obstruction of business operations for four months of imprisonment with prison labor and one year of suspended execution with prison labor for each of the above crimes) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, the defendant refused to return the clan documents without justifiable grounds even after being requested by theO elected as the representative of the clan on December 29, 2014 by the clan general meeting of the defendant, and it is reasonable to deem that the defendant was guilty of embezzlement immediately on the ground that the illegal acquisition intent was recognized. However, the court below acquitted the defendant of embezzlement among the facts charged in this case on the ground that the resolution of appointment of the representative of the defendant on December 29, 2014 was invalidated. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The lower court’s punishment against the wrongful Defendant for sentencing is too excessive.