A. Each sentence of the lower court [Defendant A - the first judgment of the lower court: Imprisonment with prison labor for one year and two months: Defendant B - the first judgment of the lower court: imprisonment for three years and six months: imprisonment for two years and six months; imprisonment for eight months and the third judgment of the lower court: imprisonment for eight months and the fourth judgment of the lower court: imprisonment for eight months and fine of eight months and fine of two million won) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant DI (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and unreasonable sentencing) 1) or misunderstanding of legal principles, Defendant DI believed Defendant A, who operated a company specialized in immigration brokerage, and proceeded with the acquisition of nationality through his guidance, and did not know at all the circumstances that DV’s passport and family relation certificate submitted to DV were forged. In addition, Defendant DI submitted a passport lawfully issued by a public official in charge of Guatemala passport as a document for applying for admission to a foreigners’ school, this cannot be said to constitute a deceptive scheme which constitutes the elements for the crime of interference with business, or thereby interfere with the situation of entering the foreigners’ school. 2) The sentence of unfair sentencing ( imprisonment for August, suspension of execution 2, 120, community service and confiscation for 120 hours) sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

C. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (as to the portion of innocence against Defendant A and B in the first instance judgment), even though the passport issued by a subordinate public official in charge of issuing a passport issued by the country of Guatemala passport is forged, the court below erred by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) Defendant CU of the Republic of Korea (as to the part on Defendant CU in the third instance judgment), although the passport submitted as a document related to admission to a foreigners’ school was forged, or its acquisition was lawful and valid.