Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against Defendant AG, AH, and A, and the part against Defendant A in the judgment of the second instance.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

(a) Defendant AG, AH, A, and B’s punishment (for Defendant AG, 8 months of imprisonment and Defendant AH: Imprisonment with prison labor; 1 year of imprisonment with prison labor; 8 months of imprisonment with prison labor; and 3 months of Defendant A: imprisonment with prison labor; 1 year of imprisonment with prison labor with prison labor with prison labor with prison labor with prison labor with the first instance judgment; 2 months of the second instance judgment; and 6 months of the combined imprisonment with prison labor with prison labor with prison labor with the second instance judgment) are too unreasonable;

나. 피고인 AI ⑴ 사실오인 ㈎ 제1원심판결 중 2014고단7866 부분 피고인은 원심 판시와 같이 CS, AG, CV, 성명불상자와 공모하여 공문서인 서울 강북구청장 명의로 된 CU의 주민등록증 1장을 위조한 사실이 없다.

㈏ 제1원심판결 중 2014고단8438 부분 피고인은 원심 판시와 같이 A, AL과 공모하여 사문서인 DB 명의의 부동산 월세계약서 1장을 위조한 사실이 없다.

B. The sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the imprisonment of 8 months with prison labor) of the lower court on the ground that it is too unreasonable.

다. 피고인 AL ⑴ 사실오인(제1원심판결 중 2014고단8438 부분) ㈎ 피고인은 AI로부터 DB 명의의 부동산 월세계약서 1장을 건네받아 피해자 DC에게 전달한 사실은 있으나, AI, A와 위 부동산 월세계약서를 위조하여 금원을 편취하기로 공모하지 않았고, 위 부동산 월세계약서를 위조한 적도 없으며, 피해자 DC에게 전달할 당시 위조된 문서인지도 몰랐으므로 위조사문서행사의 고의도 없었다.

㈏ 피고인은 피해자 DJ으로부터 합계 2,993만 원 상당의 금원을 교부받은 사실은 있지만, 당시 위 금원을 변제할 의사와 능력이 있었으므로 편취의 범의가 없었다.

B. The sentence of unfair sentencing (6 months of imprisonment with prison labor) of the lower court on the ground that it is too unreasonable.

With regard to the second judgment of the prosecutor, the lower court’s sentence (the same as the above) against Defendant A and B is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Examination of the judgment ex officio against Defendant AH and A, Defendant AH and the Prosecutor’s grounds of appeal, prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal.