Defendant

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

Defendant .

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles (A) , uttering of a private document, or attempted fraud, Defendant A in collusion with Defendant C and the J, and the written diagnosis of a post facto disability in the name of Defendant C and W, the president (hereinafter “instant diagnosis”).

Defendant A does not have forged a certificate of residual disability in the name of the W, which was duly issued by the O-type division in accordance with the demands of the J that would be able to promptly receive insurance proceeds (hereinafter referred to as “Dong-type fire”). Defendant A’s certificate of residual disability in the name of the W (hereinafter referred to as “Dong-type fire”).

(B) It was only submitted, and there was no intention to commit a crime of deceiving the insurance money by deceiving the same fire. (b) Defendant A did not have the J pretended symptoms different from the actual ones so that Defendant A issued a diagnosis of the Z’s disability under the name of the true Z. In addition, even if Defendant A’s act constitutes deception, the causal relationship between the deception and the payment of insurance money is not recognized. (2) The first instance sentence (three years of imprisonment) against Defendant A of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant C1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles did not constitute a forgery of W’s written diagnosis of the harm inflicted by the latter in collusion with Defendant A and J. In addition, Defendant C did not know at all whether Defendant A and J submitted the written diagnosis of the harm inflicted by the latter in the same fire to claim personal insurance money. There was no conspiracy between Defendant A and J to commit an attempted attempted crime against the said fire. 2) The first instance court’s imprisonment (6 months of suspended execution, 2 years of community service, 160 hours of imprisonment) against Defendant C is too unreasonable.

(c) The first instance sentence against Defendant C of the Prosecutor (unfair form of punishment) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court and the first instance court as to the Defendants’ assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to the forgery of private documents, the uttering of private investigation documents, and the attempted fraud.