All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant (De facto mistake) agreed with G to determine the amount of the Promissory Notes in this case as KRW 33 million, and thereafter, the Defendant accordingly stated the amount of KRW 33 million. Thus, a promissory note in excess of the delegated authority was not forged.

In addition, even if the assertion that D and G’s “D sent a promissory note in the blank space,” it is true that D delegates delegated the authority on the amount of a promissory note to G, so the Defendant’s entry of KRW 33 million cannot be deemed to have forged a promissory note without authority.

B. The prosecutor (unfair punishment) of the lower court’s sentence (two years of suspended sentence in October, and eight hours of community service in community service) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the difference between the first instance court and the appellate court’s method of evaluating the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court in light of the contents of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court, or in exceptional cases where it is deemed significantly unreasonable to maintain the first instance court’s decision on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court in full view of the results of the first instance court’s examination and the results of additional evidence examination conducted until the closing of pleadings, the appellate court should not reverse the first instance court’s decision on the grounds that the first instance court’s decision on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance is different from the appellate court’s decision (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do5313, Jun. 14, 2012). In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the lower court duly admitted evidence and duly examined the evidence.