Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months;

Defendants misunderstanding of facts (Defendant H) did not have any fact that the Defendants participated in the crime of paragraph (3) of the judgment of the court below [2014 Highest 2113].

As the Defendant did not attend the KR office after a police officer on June 2012, the Defendant did not take part in the crime in this part of the judgment of the court below [2014 Highest 3773] 8 or 9 of the annexed crime list (3). Thus, the Defendant did not take part in the crime of this part.

The following punishments against the Defendants of each court below on unfair sentencing are too unlimited and unfair:

Defendant

A: Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor of one year and six months in the first instance court, and one year and six months in the second instance court; Defendant B: imprisonment with prison labor of one year and six months in the second instance court; Defendant A in the second instance; imprisonment with prison labor of three years and six months in the second instance court; each of the lower court’s punishments against Defendant A, Defendant H, and I in the second instance court, with prison labor of one year and eight months in the second instance; and it is unfair that the second instance court’s punishment with respect to Defendant A, Defendant A, and

Judgment

Defendant

B We examine ex officio the reasons for appeal against the defendant and prosecutor before determining ex officio.

This court held two appeals cases against the defendant jointly and tried by the two original judgments, and the crime in the decision of each original court is a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and a single sentence shall be sentenced pursuant to Article 38 (1) of the Criminal Act. Therefore, the part of each original judgment against the defendant cannot be maintained any more.

Defendant

The following circumstances revealed from the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts in H [2014Da2113](3) of the judgment of the lower court, i.e.,: (a) the Defendant created a certificate of employment at the time of Defendant B’s attempt to obtain a loan; and (b) the Defendant obtained a loan by means of carrying out a loan from a bank while entering the bank, and even based on the Defendant’s statement, the instant case was upon Defendant B’s request to receive documents related to P’s employment.