The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts (as to the forgery of private document and the uttering thereof), the Defendant only received from I a receipt signed under the name of E, and a document signed with the seal affixed in the name of E, and there was no forgery.

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

2. Determination

A. The lower court found the following facts based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts: (i) the Defendant sent the same word as the content stated in the forged receipt (No. 15) to I on November 21, 2017; (ii) the above receipt and the text sent by the Defendant correspond to the amount requested by the Defendant as attorney’s fees for the victim; (iii) inasmuch as the Defendant continued to operate the attorney’s office, if the Defendant’s fraudulent act requires the attorney’s fee receipt paid for the case requested to E, as alleged in the foregoing, it was possible to directly check the location and contact address of E-at-law; (iv) the above receipt was issued to the Defendant; and (v) the Defendant did not consider it as a receipt issued by the Defendant’s fraudulent act; and (v) the Defendant did not conclude the delegation contract with E-at-law to return the victim’s share of inheritance from C to the victim; and (vii) the Defendant paid the victim’s money to the Defendant as if the victim actually paid the Plaintiff’s money to the victim.