All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding the facts) did not agree to transfer the claim for return of deposits to J with respect to I hotel (hereinafter “the hotel of this case”) and became aware of the fact in the course of the ex post facto civil litigation, so the Defendants did not file a false complaint with J as a crime of forging private documents and a crime of aiding and abetting documents for the purpose of having the J punished criminal punishment. However, the judgment of the court below convicting the Defendants of the facts charged of this case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, is erroneous by misapprehending the facts of the judgment, which affected the conclusion of the judgment (the Defendant A, at the first trial date of the trial of the first instance trial of the first instance trial of the trial of the

2. From November 5, 2013, Defendant B and son of the instant charges entered into a lease agreement with H on the instant hotel owned by Ha and paid KRW 500 million to the deposit money, and Defendant B, the south of the Republic of Korea, around August 20, 2014, operated the said hotel. Defendant B, the south of the Republic of Korea, entered into a lease agreement with L to lease the instant hotel owned by Ha and the said main store (hereinafter “the instant main store”). Around August 20, 2014, Defendant B agreed to transfer the claim for the return of the instant deposit money to the instant hotel with the leased deposit.

On November 19, 2015, the Defendants conspired to prepare a false complaint against J through Defendant A’s employees in the U.S. legal office located in Seocheon-gu N, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, U.S.A. Office.

A written complaint is a deposit for the hotel of this case, when the defendant J entered into a lease agreement with L around August 14, 2014, stating that the main points of this case are leased from L at the office of Q newspaper company located in Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seoul, Seoul, and that the main points of this case were leased by the complainant B and the complainant A.