The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, the period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In misunderstanding the facts and legal principles, the victim Air Force C (hereinafter “instant flight group”) drafted a written agreement on August 17, 2009 (hereinafter “the instant agreement”) with D (hereinafter “D”) on the installation of a golf course electric cart with the victim’s air force C (hereinafter “D”). It is a quid pro quo relationship to use D without compensation for a certain period of time so that it can preserve the value of the property in lieu of paying the electronic leading cart system.

Therefore, the change of circumstances that D's investment cost increase in the course of performing the additional construction has occurred, but it is impossible to achieve D's purpose of collecting investment cost, based on the bid amount prior to the additional construction in accordance with the instant agreement, which would be contrary to D's trust.

Therefore, there was a reasonable reason to revise the instant agreement so that D can supplement the amount equivalent to the increased value of the property as a result of performing the additional construction work.

Therefore, the defendant recognized that the amendment of the reasonable scope of agreement is an act within the scope of delegated authority, and there was no awareness that the amendment of the financial cost was merely made for the unification of the phrase of the agreement and that there was no benefit or damage to the military unit.

A violation of the procedures for amending the Guides Agreement;

However, if the defendant revised the agreement to recover the amount equivalent to D's additional costs, the difference between the existing bid price and the additional contract price can not be considered as property interest acquired D's property interest.

2) Since a written agreement on the modification of the use of a forged or forged official document is recognized and sealed by a person who is authorized to affix the official seal, the establishment of the document is authentic, so the crime of forging the official document is not established.

B. The lower court’s sentencing is unfair.