B and C’s appeal and prosecutor’s appeal against the Defendants are all dismissed.

A. The sentence of the lower court against Defendant B (unfair sentencing) is too unreasonable (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, and one hundred and sixty hours of community service).

B. Defendant C (1) misunderstanding of the facts or misunderstanding of the legal principles, the Defendant did not have conspired with AO or AV with regard to the crime of gambling written diagnosis, and did not know that the Defendant was using the diagnosis written by AV or AO for the illegal transfer of an individual taxi license, and the lower court did not have the intention to commit the crime of uttering of a false diagnosis document. Therefore, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the charges, which erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles of the joint principal offender.

(2) The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and one hundred and sixty hours of community service) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

(c)

(1) The prosecutor (misunderstanding the facts as to the acquittal portion against Defendant C) found the Defendant not guilty on the part of the lower court in light of the following: (a) the Defendant did not examine the mental fission; (b) stated that BN did not give any inconvenience to the prosecution; and (c) it cannot be deemed that the escape certificate of the cirical side of the cirical side would require treatment for more than one year; and (d) the lower court found the Defendant not guilty on this part of the facts charged; and (b) there was an error in the misapprehension of facts.

(2) The lower court’s each sentence against the Defendants (as to the Defendants, 1 year and 2 months of imprisonment, 2 years of probation, 160 hours of community service, 1 year of probation, 2 years of probation, 1 year of probation, 160 hours of community service, 160 hours of community service, 160 hours of probation) is unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to Defendant C’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the crime of a false document forged or falsified refers to the authenticity of the same document or the use of the document as true (see Supreme Court Decision 85Do2798, Feb. 25, 1986). Two or more persons commit a crime.