Defendant

A's appeal is dismissed.

The judgment below

The part concerning Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

B. Imprisonment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (1) misunderstanding of facts) 2 of the original judgment

A. The above Article of the certificate as stated in paragraph (1) and the facts constituting the crime of the court below

B. (1) through (3) the contents of each written confirmation prepared by Defendant A to the effect that the event of the above investigation document are true, and it is merely a fact-finding confirmation, and it is believed that Defendant A has the authority to prepare it.

Therefore, the crime of forging private documents and the crime of uttering of private documents is not established, or there was no intention for the defendant A to commit the above crimes.

B. The defendant A's attempted fraud and occupational breach of trust

A. Each construction contract mentioned in paragraphs (8) through (11) was forged. At the same time, each contract form was prepared and submitted in accordance with the practice of the victim F Co., Ltd. F (hereinafter “victim”) to increase sales by reporting the completion of construction at the same time. Therefore, Defendant A did not have an intention to commit fraud and occupational breach of trust.

2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on Defendant A (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and 120 hours of community service) is too unreasonable. B. Defendant B 1’s mistake of facts in the lower court’s criminal facts

A. (1) through (3), (6), (12), and (13) of the construction contract, deposit request, construction cost (the fact of the request for balance and the fact of the original crime) of the court below

B. In order to participate in the tendering process of each of the above construction works as stated in paragraphs (1) through (3), (5), (8), and (9), the injured company should submit various documents and the bid performance guarantee insurance policy. In general, the injured company's notification to the business entity selected by the management office. As such, it can be sufficiently known that the injured company was selected prior to the conclusion of each construction contract, and the contract was issued and submitted at the time of the conclusion of the contract, and the warranty insurance policy was issued and submitted at the time of the completion of the construction. As such, the injured company was also aware of the progress of each construction project.

(b).