A. Defendant 1) Defendant 1 had no intention to commit the crime of defraudation and the crime of uttering of the above investigation document, inasmuch as the payment guarantee letter F and G was forged.

The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor: The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unfortunate and unfair.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the lower court also rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the grounds of this part of the grounds for appeal, and based on the detailed circumstances as indicated in its reasoning.

The judgment below

In addition to the following circumstances known by the records, such judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is an error of law by mistake of facts, such as the defendant's assertion.

subsection (b) of this section.

1) The Defendant “I would have paid F more than KRW 100 million under the name of the payment guarantee fee, and would have known that the payment guarantee certificate received from F was forged.”

The term “or,” but did not submit objective data consistent with it, and in this regard did not take civil and criminal measures against F.

2) G testified in the lower court’s trial to the effect that “I were bound by the charge of forging this payment guarantee, and received money from the victims as a fee for issuing a written guarantee,” “I asked F along with the Defendant,” and “I accused the Defendant (F) of the charge.”

B. As to each of the unfair arguments of sentencing by the defendant and the prosecutor, the lower court determined the punishment within a reasonable scope by fully taking into account the overall circumstances regarding the sentencing of the defendant, and the circumstances that may be newly considered in the trial of the party.