The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, the Defendant only had a vague idea that F was trying to commit a real estate fraud, and there was no conspiracy to commit the instant crime with F, C, E, and E, and there was no fact that F was involved in the instant crime, except that F, C, E, and E was transferred to the C A judicial scrivener’s office. Therefore, the Defendant does not constitute

In addition, the official seal of the head of the Dong is not affixed on the certificate under the name of the head of the Dong in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government, and C created the resident registration certificate under the name of the head of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government as stated in subparagraph 1-B.

In light of the fact that the above documents were written, since they did not have the form and appearance that the general public believe as public documents, this part of the documents cannot be established as a crime of forging public documents.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found all of the facts charged of this case guilty is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and legal principles.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the certificate of seal imprint and the certificate of seal imprint (No. 82 of the evidence list) signed by F with respect to a certificate of seal imprint and the certificate of seal imprint, which is signed by F, the fact that the official seal of the head of M Dong is illegible on the side of the statement "the head of the Dong of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, the head of Dong" can be known.

B. From comparing a forged certificate of seal imprint and a certificate of seal imprint (No. 93 of the evidence list), the overall form and appearance are very similar.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the defendant's assertion.

2) At the investigative agency and the lower court’s court, C considered that the resident registration certificate was crypted at the investigative agency and the lower court’s court, but the photograph was tweeted, and that the photograph was sweeted, and was swe

Although the statement was made, C’s above statement was made at the time when E, the land owner, X, G.