A. Defendant 1 was granted a driver’s license under the name of D from S, and the Defendant presented it, and did not forge the vehicle rental contract, etc. after making an application for a new transaction with the National Bank Account, and did not have forged the vehicle rental contract, etc., and there was no fact that stolen the number plate of the C-owned vehicle. Defendant 1 knew with S’s instructions on lawful sale and delivery of the vehicle to P, and did not know the fact that the said vehicle was a siren who attached the number plate that the said vehicle stolen. (2) The sentence of unfair sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. The fact-finding of each private document and each falsified investigation document in the name of prosecutor(s) C are bound to be a criminal. Since S was at the time, the documents in the name of prosecutor(s) are also forged and exercised by the Defendant.

Judgment

A. The lower court also asserted that there was a mistake of facts as to the guilty portion, and the lower court also argued that ① at the time of selling a siren to P, the Defendant delivered the copy of the O vehicle registration certificate and the copy of the C resident registration certificate to P, and the copy of the said registration certificate and the copy of the said certificate are documents directly received from C as the Defendant would sell a vehicle owned by C at around 20:0 on May 22, 2011, and ② as the Defendant confirmed O vehicle together with C, the vehicle sold by the Defendant was naturally known that the vehicle sold by the Defendant is not C, ③ the Defendant was aware of the fact that the vehicle sold by the Defendant was not a vehicle of C, ③ the Defendant, along with C at the underground parking lot in the residence of C at an investigative agency, examined the vehicle with C, received the copy of the registration certificate, etc. from C, and ④ the Defendant asserted that he was sent a stolen vehicle to the Defendant in Sungnam, but it is consistent with the investigative agency to the court.