A. As to the attempted fraud of the prosecutor, the forgery of private documents against C, and the uttering of falsified investigation documents, if the transaction specification form was prepared or forged with the content of a lower amount than the actual purchase price, and the insurance money was claimed based on this, it shall be deemed that there was a criminal intent to acquire money under the pretext of insurance money, and since the C’s legal statement is not reliable, each of the facts charged shall be found guilty. However, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

B. Defendant 1) With regard to the forgery of a private document and the uttering of a falsified investigation document against H, the Defendant, with the consent of H, prepared a statement of transactions in this case. However, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the charges, which erred by misunderstanding of facts. 2) The sentence (5 million won of a fine) sentenced by the lower court of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable and unfair.

(2) The Prosecutor’s grounds of appeal are not clear, but the Prosecutor’s grounds of appeal are determined on the following grounds: (a) the Prosecutor’s grounds of appeal are not clear; (b) the Prosecutor’s grounds of appeal and the Prosecutor’s grounds of appeal are

A. On September 9, 2010, the summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) the Defendant: (b) forged private documents regarding the specifications of trading in the name of C (O); and (c) submitted a forged statement of trading in the name of C (O) to an adjuster, an insurance company, etc.; and (b) submitted a forged statement of trading in the name of C (O) to the third party during the period from October 20 to October 27, 2010; and (c) submitted a forged statement of trading in the name of C (O) to an adjuster, an insurance company, etc.