The defendant's each crime of fraud, fabrication of private document, and uttering of private document.

A. Defendant 1) In the lower court’s judgment, Co-Defendant 2 participated in the process of deceiving the victim F, and acquired KRW 2 million out of the victim F’s sale proceeds, but the victim F did not participate in the process of trading a motor vehicle with the victim F, and he used the F’s used used vehicle performance and condition inspection register alone to sell a used motor vehicle to F, and the Defendant did not participate in the forgery or uttering of the above private document. 2) The lower court’s sentence (each fraud, forgery of private document, forgery of private document, and uttering of the above private document) of unfair sentencing is unreasonable.

B. Each of the above forms of the lower court’s judgment is deemed to be too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination as to fraud, fabrication of private documents, and uttering of private documents

A. Co-defendant B stated at the court below that he did not participate in the fabrication and uttering of private document, and the defendant's defense counsel submitted CG dialogue on January 9, 2018 with a similar content in the trial. On April 22, 2017, the defendant was not at the site, but at the site when he forged a used vehicle performance and condition inspection register while selling and selling the vehicle to the victim F on April 22, 2017. However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, ① the defendant did not have any participation in the crime of fraud against the victim F at the court below, and, at the trial, the defendant recognized the fraud at the trial, ② the defendant was said to have committed the crime of fraud with the victim F, ② the defendant would also have committed the second and second fraud with the victim F at the victim's direction, and ③ the defendant would also receive two million won of the victim F's damage amount from B.