A. Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts by Defendant A did not forge the monthly rent contract of the instant real estate, and there was no fact that Defendant A participated in the foregoing Article.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby convicting Defendant A of the facts charged.

B. In full view of the various factors of sentencing in the instant case’s assertion of unfair sentencing by the Defendants, the sentence that the lower court sentenced the Defendants (one million won by each fine) is too unreasonable.

(c)

The punishment sentenced by the court below against the defendants is too unfortunate and unfair.

2. The judgment of the court below as to the defendant A's assertion of mistake of facts, the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, and the defendant A's statement in the court of original trial can be fully acknowledged that the defendant A forged the written monthly rent contract of this case in the name of the defendant Eul together with the defendant Eul. Thus, the judgment of the court below is just, and the above defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

3. In full view of the reasoning of the lower judgment regarding the Defendants and the Prosecutor’s unfair argument of sentencing, the lower court’s sentencing appears to have been reasonably determined by fully considering all the circumstances, including various sentencing grounds asserted by the Defendants and the Prosecutor, and there are no special circumstances to the extent that the said sentence should be changed.

Ultimately, the defendants and prosecutor's argument of sentencing is without merit.

4. In conclusion, the appeal by the Defendants and the prosecutor is without merit, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.