The judgment below

The part against the Defendants is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months.

except that this judgment.

1. Grounds for appeal;

A. Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. by Defendant A (hereinafter “Defendant”) and misapprehension of the legal principle (hereinafter “collective weapons, threats, etc.”)

In relation to the point of issue: (a) the Defendants did not threaten the complainant in knife each private document forgery and uttering; (b) the Defendants’ forgery and uttering of securities; (c) the Defendants prepared “investment agreement”, “investment agreement and loan certificate”, “L equity and service contract”, and “bonds transfer and takeover contract”; (d) issued “ Promissory Notes dated October 21, 2009 and “ Promissory Notes dated December 9, 2009”; and (e) even if not, the Defendants were authorized to make up for the said documents, and thus, it is not forged.

3) As to the Defendants’ fraudulent entry in the authentic copy of the authentic deed and the fact that the said exercise was carried out: As such, the promissory note was not forged, there is no fact that the original copy of the authentic deed was recorded falsely. 4) As to the Defendants’ fraud and attempted fraud, the Defendants do not constitute the forged securities or the original copy of the authentic deed, and thus, even if the money was received by using it, it does not constitute fraud.

5) As to Defendant A’s incompetence, each of the above documents and promissory notes was made genuine, and thus, it is not a complaint of false facts. B. Even if Defendant A is found guilty of unfair sentencing (Defendant A), the lower court’s sentencing (one year of imprisonment is too unreasonable) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below as to whether Defendant A threatened Defendant A with a knife, Defendant A demanded on October 6, 2009 to return the borrowed amount of KRW 300 million to B, and Defendant B demanded that the borrowed amount be returned to the due date ( October 15, 2009) on the ground that the borrowed amount was not due, Defendant A used the knife while keeping the table table outside the convenience store.