A. Defendant A1) As to the forgery of each private document of mistake of facts and the uttering of a falsified investigation document, the Defendant was delegated by L’s operator X, the nominal owner, the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) The Defendant believed that D, E, and C actually subscribed to the acquisition of I Co., Ltd. in connection with the mistake of facts and the fraud, and there was no intention to obtain fraud, and there was no involvement in the forgery and use of each private document with regard to the forgery of each private document and the use of each private document. Therefore, the judgment of the court below convicting this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. (2) The sentence of imprisonment (6 months) by the court below on unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

C. Defendant C (unfair punishment) The sentence of the lower court (10 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the above Defendant asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the lower court rejected the allegation of the above Defendant on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, and convicted him of this part of the facts charged. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence, the lower court’s judgment is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts, and there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, the above Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts is without merit. 2) The lower court also asserted that the above Defendant was the same as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the lower court rejected the above Defendant’s assertion on the grounds as