The judgment below

The guilty part shall be reversed.

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

except that from the date of this judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence imposed by the lower court (two years of imprisonment with prison labor for a year, two years of community service, 240 hours) is too unreasonable.

B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the court below acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged, although the Defendant could be found to have forged and exercised one copy of the loan certificate under E around July 6, 2015. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) In light of the legal principles, the Defendant, who is the victim’s dead-end victim’s dead-end spouse, is not a lineal blood relative of the victim, and does not belong to a relative living together, and thus does not belong to a relative and family member. In addition, the Defendant does not fall under the relationship between a lineal blood relative of the victim, or a relative living together, and the spouse of the relative and family member living together. However, the lower court exempted the Defendant from punishment by applying a precedent to this part of the facts charged by blood.

2. Determination

A. Examining the evidence of this case as to the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts in light of the records, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the court below, based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, for the reasons indicated in its reasoning, forged a certificate of borrowed money under the name of E.

Considering this part of the facts charged is just and acceptable, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts as alleged by the prosecutor.

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

B. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the Prosecutor’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the victim F is the E’s spouse, who is the Defendant’s child, and is the spouse of the Defendant’s lineal blood relative. Therefore, the victim F should be exempted from punishment for the attempted crime of fraud in this case against the victim F in accordance with Articles 354 and 328(1) of the Criminal Act.