The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, on July 28, 201, the Defendant did not prepare a sales contract (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with the purport that he/she would sell a F gas station site 490 square meters and its ground buildings and G road 308 square meters and H 253 square meters (hereinafter “the instant real estate”) to E on July 28, 201, and the Defendant forged the said sales contract by stealing the Defendant’s seal impression.

Therefore, the contents of the complaint prepared by the defendant are not false, but the defendant did not have intention without intention.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts charged or by misunderstanding the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In light of the various sentencing conditions of this case where sentencing is unfair, the sentence of 8 months sentenced by the court below to the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant asserted the same purport in the lower court, and the lower court, based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated, comprehensively based on its stated reasoning, concluded a sales contract with respect to the instant real estate with E on July 28, 201, and prepared and executed the instant sales contract with K delegated by E, the Defendant may sufficiently recognize the fact that the Defendant, as described in the facts charged in the instant case, was not a party E, as indicated in the instant facts charged.

The decision was determined.

In light of the above evidence, a thorough examination of the circumstances presented by the court below in light of the above evidence is just in rejecting the defendant's assertion based on such circumstances and finding the defendant guilty of this part of the charges, and there are errors as alleged by the defendant.

subsection (b) of this section.

Ultimately, the defendant's mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are without merit.

B. The lower court’s judgment on the wrongful assertion of sentencing (i.e., favorable circumstances).