All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court (two years of suspended execution for one year of imprisonment, two years of community service, two hundred hours of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor (1) and the prosecutor, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principle as to the facts charged, although it is found guilty of this part of the facts charged.

(2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) The lower court rendered a judgment as to the assertion of mistake of facts (1) but there is no other evidence to reinforce this part of the facts charged, and thus, it cannot be determined guilty of this part of the facts charged on the sole basis of the said confession, on the grounds that the confession constitutes the only evidence unfavorable to the Defendant, and thus, it constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime

(2) The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, ① the Defendant, at the first prosecutor’s office, had CZ submit a forged employment certificate, etc. when the Defendant applied for a loan to the loan company EL EL, the loan to the BZ, the loan to the BJ, and the East and East.

(2) CZ also applied for a loan to LL Havis T, v. Blus T, U.S. loan, and East America in telephone conversations with the prosecution investigator.

However, it did not mention the CNA loan (2015 highestest 37577 pages), and (3) The prosecutor requested the lending company to send the documents submitted by the CNA while requesting the lending company to collect additional evidence according to the Defendant’s above statement. CNA did not make such a request (28 pages of evidence No. 3757 highest 2015 highest 3757). (4) The Defendant stated that he/she led to the confession of the facts charged in this case at the prosecutor’s office and the court of the lower court, but the prosecutor stated that “the Defendant” together with H.