The judgment below

Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Defendant

A, C-.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (1) misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles) the forgery of private documents, and the uttering of a falsified document (2014 high group 9988) Defendant A did not know at all about the forgery of a real estate transaction agreement and a separate account book, and there was no motive to commit a crime that could be forged.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged by giving credibility to the O's statement, the only direct evidence, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding facts against the rules of evidence and misunderstanding legal principles.

B) Fraud of the victim Y (2015 senior group 1277) Defendant A merely borrowed money from the victim due to family circumstances and did not intend to commit fraud.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the crime of fraud fraud.

C) Fraud against the victim AP (2016 order 1379, 2016 order 1379 (2)) was made by Defendant A to lend money to Defendant B by phone to the victim. However, as alleged by the victim, there was no deception by Defendant A to send the money as down payment with respect to Nos. 601 and 602 of the instant case, and it was difficult for the victim to conclude the contract on the above lending with the victim.

There is no intention to commit fraud because it was known in advance.

Nevertheless, there is credibility in the victim's statement.

In light of this, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles on the criminal intent.

D) Fraud against the victim AY (2016 order 9510 (1) 1) was committed on October 4, 2010, Defendant C borrowed KRW 200 million from the victim to pay U transfer price, and it is not jointly borrowed with Defendant A.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found Defendant A guilty of this part of the facts charged by giving credibility to Defendant C’s statement even though there was no conspiracy with Defendant C, is erroneous in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence, and there is a legal objection.