A. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (Defendant B) was unaware that the pre-tax contract entered in the facts charged was forged.

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

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below as to Defendant B’s assertion of mistake of facts was also the same in the court below, and the court below rejected this decision. The court below’s judgment is just in accordance with the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below.

Therefore, Defendant B’s assertion of mistake is without merit.

B. Judgment 1 on the Defendants’ wrongful assertion of sentencing is recognized that Defendant A was unable to punish the victim by mutual consent with the victim at the court below. However, even though Defendant A had a number of times of criminal records, such as punishment for the same kind of crime, repeated again, the above Defendant’s age, sex, family environment, the background and result of the instant crime, and the subsequent circumstances, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable, and thus, the Defendant A’s improper assertion of sentencing is not justified.

2) Examining all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the pleadings of the instant case, including the fact that Defendant B denied and did not reflect the crime, the injury therefrom did not reach an agreement with the victim, and the fact that there existed the same kind of punishment as the same crime, and the above Defendant’s age, sex, family environment, the circumstances and result of the instant crime, and the subsequent circumstances, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable, and thus, it is not deemed unfair. Thus, the Defendant’s argument of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. According to the conclusion, the Defendants’ respective appeals are without merit, and the Criminal Procedure Act is applicable.