The guilty portion shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for seven years.

The judgment below

Part of acquittal.

(a) Defendant 1) Forgery of each private document (Article 1 of the Criminal facts 2015 Maz. 1658 Maz. 1 and Article 2 of the 2016 Maz. 479 Maz.

(a) 1 to 3), 3-

(a) 1 to 3), 4-

(a) 1 to 3), 5-

A. (1) and (3) and alteration of official documents (Article 2) of the facts charged as indicated in the lower judgment (Article 2(2) of the 2015 senior group 1658 of the facts charged as indicated in the lower judgment), with respect to each of the facts charged in the instant case, the fact that each of the facts charged in the instant case is identical to “a place in which the place of the crime was not indicated” was indicated, and thus, the facts charged was not specified, and thus, is null and void in violation of the statutory provisions.

B) In fact, CT identified real estate that could be subject to fraud and inform the Defendant of the fact, and is the principal offender who forged each private document of this case and altered the official document of this case.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of forgery of each private document and alteration of official document is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

2) The sentence of the lower court (six years of imprisonment) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) The Defendant was found to have committed the disguised act to conceal criminal proceeds in addition to fraud, and thus, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2) The above sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination as to the forgery of each private document and alteration of an official document 1) The facts charged in the indictment are required to limit the scope of the trial against the court and facilitate the exercise of the defense by specifying the scope of the defense against the defendant. Thus, it is desirable to clearly specify the facts that are possible, such as the date, time, place, method, etc. of the crime, but it is so, as to be so.

The prosecution is instituted to require strict specification as long as it is necessary.