All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal by the Defendants, Defendant A was elected as the president of the F reconstruction Housing Association on the charge of forging each private document under the name of the F reconstruction Housing Association and the uttering of the above-mentioned documents among the facts charged in the instant case, and thus, Defendant A had the authority to prepare documents under the name of the F Reconstruction Housing Association or the Defendants were delegated with the authority to prepare documents from AK or E, and the Defendants were alleged in the defense counsel’s written opinion and the supplementary statement to the grounds of appeal submitted after the lapse of the period for filing the appeal

Even if there are errors in omission of judgment or infringement of the defendants' right to defense and the right to assistance of counsel.

As the court below did not consider it as the object of judgment ex officio, it cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

In addition, the argument that the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the method of proving the reason for sentencing is ultimately unfair.

Therefore, under Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal may be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing. As such, the argument that the determination of punishment is unfair in this case where a minor sentence has been imposed against the Defendants is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. Examining the reasoning of Defendant A’s appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court was justifiable to have determined that Defendant A was guilty of forging a private document and exercising the said investigation document under the name of J among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the scope of the appellate trial, thereby affecting the conclusion