Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months.

The fifteen-day period of detention prior to the pronouncement of the judgment of the court below shall be included in the above sentence: Provided, That the execution of the above sentence shall be postponed for two years from the date

Of the appeal filed by the prosecutor against the defendant 2 and the appeal filed against the defendant 1, all parts concerning the above notarial deed originals are dismissed.

In other words, Defendant 1’s act of forging related documents to enter the grounds for registration of ownership in the register with Nonindicted 3 who had already died, cannot be the subject of the right, and therefore, even though the above registration of ownership preservation in the name of the deceased cannot be deemed to correspond to the substantive legal relationship, the court below’s decision that acquitted Defendant 1 on the ground that the above registration is a valid registration in accordance with the substantive legal relationship, and there is no need to follow the legal principles as to the remaining issues.

First, as to the assertion of unfair sentencing on Defendant 2, the determination of the lower court’s punishment is deemed unreasonable because it is too unreasonable in light of the overall circumstances such as the Defendant’s age or environment acknowledged by health stand, records, and evidence, and the motive and circumstance of the instant crime.

Next, as to the assertion of mistake of facts against Defendant 1, if the result of fact-finding in the trial was collected on the relevant evidence cited by the judgment of the court below, the number of No. 189 and No. 216 of the same (number 1 omitted) was originally owned by Defendant 1, but he succeeded to and transferred to Defendant 1, his birth, and he was transferred to Defendant 4, who was his father, and the former 189 when he succeeded to the same Defendant’s death, and the former 189 was transferred to Nonindicted 1, who is his father, his father, and the latter 189 when he succeeded to the registration of ownership transfer; the same Defendant forged related documents in the registration of ownership transfer, thereby making the registration of ownership transfer (However, the former 216, the former 189, the former 189, and the former 189, the former 189, the former 189, respectively.

In light of the above facts, the so-called "the deceased person" who made an application for registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the deceased person by forging the documents related to Nonindicted 3 who already died and entered the reason for registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the deceased person shall not be the subject of the right. Therefore, even though the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the deceased person cannot be deemed a valid registration consistent with the substantive relationship, the court below erred in the misapprehension of the legal principles on the false entry in the original notarial deed and it is obvious that this affected the judgment, and thus, it cannot be reversed.

However, each transfer registration of ownership as above, which was passed through the defendant and the non-indicted 1, is consistent with the fact that he acquired ownership, even if the reason for the acquisition of ownership is different from the actual one, so the judgment of the court below that it does not constitute an unlawful entry in the original copy of the notarial deed, and that it does not constitute an event, is

In addition, in a case where the judgment of the court below on the part of innocence in the original authentic deed by filing an application for preservation registration as above is to be reversed, since the guilty part of the judgment of the court below and the reversed part constitute concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the above guilty part should be reversed ( without examining the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor on the guilty part).

Therefore, among the appeal filed by the prosecutor against the defendant 2 and the appeal filed against the defendant 1, the part concerning the false entry of the original copy of each notarial deed by the same defendant and the non-indicted 1's application for ownership transfer registration, and the above event (fact 3) is without merit. Thus, it is dismissed pursuant to Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The prosecutor's appeal against the defendant 1 on the part concerning the false entry of the original copy of the notarial deed by the above deceased's application for ownership transfer registration, the above event (fact 2), and the guilty part of the judgment below is with merit, and it is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (6)

The criminal facts and the summary of evidence against Defendant 1 acknowledged as a party member are identical to those of the judgment of the court below, except for the case where “a false description is stated in the original copy of the real estate register, and at the same time, it is made to be kept and used” at the end of the criminal facts at the time of original adjudication as criminal facts, and therefore, they are quoted as it is by Article 369 of the same Act.

Articles 25, 229, and 225 of the Criminal Act as to the uttering of forged official documents in the court below's ruling of defendant 1, and Articles 228 and 228 (1) of the same Act as to the uttering of falsified official documents, and Articles 228 (1) of the same Act as to the uttering of falsified official documents, and Articles 229 and 228 (1) of the same Act as to the uttering of falsified official documents, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 40 of the same Act as to the crime of false entry of authentic documents, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act as to the crime of uttering of authentic official documents, the court below's sentence of imprisonment shall be suspended for a period of up to 3 months under the same Article 57 (1) of the same Act, and Article 58 (2) of the same Act shall be imposed within the scope of 5-13 months prior to the execution of the sentence.

It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jong-woo (Presiding Judge)