The part of the defendant's case shall be reversed.

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

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts (as to the conviction of the 2016 Highest 2857 case in the lower judgment), fabrication of private documents, and uttering of a falsified document: The Defendant, upon delegation by D of all authority concerning the purchase of a motor vehicle, prepared a sales contract and an application for the installment of a motor vehicle in the name of D. Thus, each of the facts charged prior to this different premise is without merit.

B) Fraud: upon the D’s request that a substitute purchase of a motor vehicle by proxy, the Defendant only committed the act as if he was D, and there was no criminal intent to deception money by deceiving the said victim. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts (connot guilty part of the judgment of the lower court) Unlike the content of the agreement with the victim C, the Defendant’s house indicated in this part of the facts charged (hereinafter “instant house”).

In full view of the circumstances such as the fact that the interior works were not carried out as to the subject matter of deception, the fact that the Defendant did not notify the victim C of the fact even though he borrowed the money as security, and the fact that the above borrowed money was not paid to the victim C and was used arbitrarily as the purchase price of separate real estate, the criminal intent of defraudation is recognized. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing is too uneasible and unfair

2. Determination

A. In the lower court’s determination of the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion and found the Defendant guilty of all the charges in this part of the lower judgment, with detailed explanation of the lower court’s determination on the lower part at the bottom of 2016

Examining the lower court’s and the first instance court’s duly adopted and examined the evidence closely, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable, and the Defendant asserts in the lower judgment.