The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Since the misunderstanding of the substance of the grounds for appeal (a false accusation) - forged the agreement on the allocation of an earning rate (hereinafter “instant agreement”) with the truth, the Defendant did not have filed a false accusation against E.

The punishment of the court below (one year and eight months of imprisonment) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

Judgment

When considering the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated in the lower court’s determination as to the assertion of mistake, the instant contract was not forged since N entered the Defendant’s resident registration number and address in the instant contract according to the Defendant’s instruction, and the Defendant was not guilty.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

① N appears in the original judgment and entered the resident registration number and address of the defendant in the contract of this case at the direction of the defendant.

was stated.

N, as seen below, after being punished for perjury in relation to the instant contract, stated the above contents from an investigative agency in order to reflect his behavior and clarify the truth, and it does not seem that N was aware of the risk that N would have been punished again and perjury.

② Meanwhile, at the time of E, it consistently stated that the instant contract was not forged from the investigative agency to the original trial, and the developments leading up to the preparation are consistent with N’s statement.

③ E filed a lawsuit seeking reimbursement of KRW 50 million based on the instant contract against L Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “L”) practically operated by the Defendant and the Defendant (hereinafter “L”), and the Defendant did not dispute as to the forgery of the instant contract in the said civil lawsuit.

④ The N testified to the effect that it was entirely unaware of the contract of this case in the above civil procedure.