A. Defendant A1) Of the parts found guilty in the lower court of mistake of facts, Defendant A1 was related to the fraud first, and the Defendant received money upon the victim D’s request for “laundry” and returned it again as the proceeds of telefing. As such, there was no fact of deception and deception, such as the facts constituting the crime in the lower judgment, and related to the forgery of private documents and the uttering of the falsified investigation documents, and the Defendant is a backbook, which is the same as the facts constituting the crime in the lower judgment (hereinafter “instant backbook”).

(2) The judgment of the court below that found the Defendant guilty of each of the facts charged, despite the absence of the misunderstanding of facts, is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts. (2) The sentence imposed by the court of unfair sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable and unfair.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (the imprisonment for eight months, the suspension of the execution of two years, the community service order 120 hours, the order to attend a compliance driving lecture 40 hours) is too unreasonable.

C. The prosecutor (Defendant A) found Defendant A not guilty of the facts at the court below on the part of the part of the fraud that found Defendant A not guilty (the part that acquired by deceiving KRW 32 million over four times from January 9, 2007 to April 11, 2007). The Defendant’s statement is not reliable, while the Defendant’s statement is not reliable, if it is consistent with D’s consistent statement that the Defendant lent money to the Defendant, and if it is in accordance with the court below’s decision, there is no reason to prepare a certificate of cash custody of KRW 15 million to D, and if the Defendant and D did not act as a broker in the Maz site, it is deemed that there is no reason to prepare a certificate of cash custody of KRW 15 million, and that the Defendant and D did not act as a broker in the Maz site, despite the credibility of D’s statement, there is an error of law of misconception of facts in the judgment of the court below which acquitted Defendant A of this part of the facts charged.

2. Determination

A. Determination of mistake of facts by Defendant A 1.