A. Defendants A, as to the forgery of each private document and the uttering of each private document, Defendant A, as the representative of the private business chain G and the corporation I (hereinafter “instant company”).

The actual representative of the instant company’s shares were each nominal trust to E, P and T, and to recover the said shares again to E and P, each agreement was made on November 10, 2014 and around February 2015, each of them was lawful use after preparing each share transfer and takeover contract. There was no fact that the Defendants conspired to forge the shares transfer and takeover contract in the name of E and there was no fact that Defendant A forged the shares transfer and takeover contract in the name of E, and Defendant A used the shares transfer and takeover contract in the name of P. 2) of the lower court against the Defendants of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment, six months of imprisonment, and two years of suspended execution).

B. Each sentence of the lower court against the Defendants by the Prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendants’ assertion of misunderstanding of facts as to the forgery of each private document and the uttering of a falsified document, the lower court rejected the Defendants’ assertion in detail and the defense counsel’s assertion under the title of “determination of the Defendants and the defense counsel’ assertion” among the judgment of the lower court, on the same ground as the grounds for appeal in this part.

In full view of the following circumstances admitted by the court below based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, this part of the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

1. Te, P and the actual representative of the company of this case were all E.