The judgment below

The guilty part shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

except that from the date of this judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment, two years of probation, observation of protection, and community service order 120 hours) is too unreasonable.

B. Regarding the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the fact that the Defendant stated “E(A)” in the lessor column under the real estate lease agreement with J may be interpreted as the use of the E’s representative or agent qualification.

In the establishment of the crime of preparation of private documents for qualification, it is not necessarily required to be indicated in the document which written the qualification.

However, the lower court rendered a not-guilty verdict on this part of the facts charged on a different premise. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and misapprehending the legal doctrine on the preparation of private documents for qualification, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) As to the Prosecutor’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the lower court, based on the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, found that the Defendant, upon entering into a lease agreement with J and a real estate lease agreement, stated the Defendant’s name in the lessor column of the lease agreement that “G, telephone, H, name: E (A)” and affixed the Defendant’s seal on his/her sexual name column; and that the Defendant did not indicate the agent’s qualification, etc. of “E” or the representative’s qualification, etc.; on the sole basis of the other evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, the Defendant drafted the lease agreement by using the Defendant’s qualification as agent or representative

This part of the charges was acquitted on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

2) We examine the following circumstances: (a) When a person without authority to prepare a documentary evidence prepares a documentary evidence; and (b) when a person without authority to prepare a documentary evidence prepares a document using “the name of another person”, the document is prepared.