The guilty part shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year and by imprisonment for six months.

Defendant

A misunderstanding of facts does not constitute a conspiracy with Defendant B on the facts constituting a crime which the court below found guilty.

Defendant B’s statement, which is a valuable evidence found guilty at the lower court, is difficult to believe because it is not reliable.

Even if the credibility of Defendant B’s statement is recognized, it is difficult to recognize a public contest with Defendant B because it is difficult to view that Defendant A had been aware of the fact that the certificate of completion of each of the above parts was altered and exercised.

The sentence of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

Defendant

B The punishment of the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of mistake of facts (not guilty part), it is sufficient to recognize the fact that the defendant A conspired with the defendant B to forge the quality guarantee and use it.

The lower court’s respective sentence against the Defendants is too uneasible and unfair.

Defendant

In full view of the following circumstances revealed in the lower court’s credibility of Defendant B’s statement and the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the lower court’s determination that recognized Defendant A’s public offering based on the recognition of the credibility of Defendant B’s statement and the judgment that recognized Defendant A’s public offering is justifiable. The above assertion by Defendant A is without merit

Defendant

Defendant B’s statement and its credibility are relatively consistent to the investigation agency’s prior to this court’s ruling that Defendant B would not allow U to deliver inventory goods at U around March 2010 and reported to Defendant A.

At the time, Defendant A was called to find a method.

After that, the defendant A did not have any way to conclude an alteration of the certificate of import declaration.

In this regard, Defendant A was aware of (A) and instructed Defendant A to continue to deliver inventory goods.

After that, 201.