A. In full view of the fact-misunderstanding and misunderstanding of the legal doctrine (as to Defendant I’s electronic records, etc., such as false entry and false electronic records, etc.), X’s prosecutor’s statement, G’s statement in investigation agency, and X confessioned this part of the facts charged in a separate case, and the facts charged in this part of the final judgment of the case are recorded as facts constituting the crime, the Defendant, in collusion with X, G, and H, can sufficiently recognize the fact that the Defendant committed the crime of false entry, such as the instant public electronic records, and the electronic records recorded as false entry.

Nevertheless, since the court below acquitted the charged facts, it erred by misapprehending the facts and by misapprehending the legal principles as to the joint principal offender in the public offering, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (for Defendant G: 8 months of imprisonment; for Defendant I: imprisonment for 4 months; for Defendant J: imprisonment for 6 months; for Defendant K: imprisonment for 6 months); and for 6 months, for Defendant K), is too unhued and unreasonable.

B. Defendant A, G, J, and K’s sentence (2 years of imprisonment, 8 months of imprisonment, 6 months of imprisonment, 6 months of imprisonment, and 6 months of imprisonment) of the lower court is unreasonable.

(c)

Defendant

1) Although there was a fact that the Defendant, at the request of G, prepared a false lease contract upon the request of G, the Defendant did not know at all that the lease contract was made by false marriage reports and neglect, and was used for receiving the lease deposit from the National Housing Fund.

Therefore, the Defendant participated as an accomplice in the crime of defraudation of loans under the name of the fund prior to the lease for the new divorce of G, etc.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, which erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on joint principal offenders, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Prosecutor’s assertion of mistake and misapprehension of the legal doctrine.