Part of the compensation order, except the compensation order, shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

A. Defendant 1) 2018 Highest 2434 Defendant 2018 highest 2434 did not have any stude with the victim C with his occupation and any her refluence.

The money listed in 1-66, 68, 71-77, 79, 80, 83, and 84 Nos. 1-6, 68, 71-7, 79, 80, 83, and 84 of the annexed crime list No. 1 in the judgment of the court below is merely the defendant's request for

The money set forth in the above Nos. 67, 69, 70, 78, 81, and 82 is not acquired from the victim C.

B) There is no deception by the defrauded of the Defendant. The money listed in 3, 4, and 14 of the [Attachment Table 3] of the Crimes List 3 as indicated in the lower judgment’s holding in the lower judgment is not borrowed by the Defendant. The Defendant did not borrow money from the victim’s M. (2) The Defendant was aware of the method of using the forged private document in a loan certificate to the victim. (3) Since the Defendant was prepared to inform the victim of the method of using the document in a loan certificate, it was later discarded, the Defendant did not have the intent to commit the crime under the pretext of the lower judgment, the Defendant was paid the money listed in 4 of the crime list in the judgment of the lower court, but this was merely received as the repayment of the principal and interest of the Defendant’s loan claim against P., and the Defendant did not receive the money.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court on unreasonable sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the Defendant also asserted the same as the grounds for appeal in the lower court, among the cases of 12018 High Court Decision 2434, 2018 High Court Decision 5961, and 2018 High Court Decision 6968, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion in detail under Paragraph 2 of the title “determination of the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion” in the written judgment. We examine the above judgment by comparing it with the record.