Of those, the part not guilty against Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

B shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

A. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) against Defendant A is unreasonable as it is excessively unhutiled.

B. The Defendant’s act of entering in the facts charged by misapprehending the legal principles as to Defendant B is to create a copy of a separate light certificate which has a new probative value to the extent that the general public might mistake in the authentic document, and thus constitutes the same Article, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor

A. In light of the content and method of the crime, degree of damage, protection of legal interests, etc., each of the crimes of this case committed by the Defendant in collusion with his accomplices is not less than the nature of the crime, and the fact that the Defendant failed to make full efforts to recover full damage by the victim agreement or complete damage, etc. is recognized as an unfavorable circumstance to the Defendant.

However, on the other hand, the defendant made a statement that he made a confession of the crime of this case and reflects his mistake in depth, there is no history of punishment, there is a dependent, a partial recovery of the victim's damage due to a lawyer's partial return of the amount agreed upon, the criminal proceeds from the crime of this case did not appear to have been much more than the accomplices, and there is no significant degree of participation, the confession of the crime of this case constitutes a requisite reduction or exemption ground, and there is no other circumstance that the court below sentenced one year of imprisonment within the range of the recommended sentence set by the sentencing guidelines, considering the various circumstances of the defendant, and there is no other circumstance that the sentencing of the court below seems to be remarkably unfair. The defendant's age, sexual behavior, intelligence and environment, the motive and background of the crime of this case, the degree of damage, the means and result, the frequency and period of the crime of this case, and the frequency of the crime.