All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to the crime of violation of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name, Defendant A lent the purchase price of the instant real estate to Defendant B, and thus did not trust the name.

2) In relation to the crime of forging a private document and the crime of forging a private document, the seller E and G are presumed to have accepted the sale price stated in the sale contract if the defendant B demanded to change the sale price.

3) In relation to fraud, Defendant B did not provide a forged transaction agreement with J, a person in charge of interest loan for bank employees prior to obtaining a loan. Since Defendant B assessed this real estate on its own, it is not related to deception of fraud.

4) Defendant A did not take part in Defendant B’s fraud, fabrication of private documents, or uttering of a falsified document, and there is no competitive relation.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment each) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding a violation of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name, the fact that Defendant A entrusted the name to Defendant B as stated in the judgment below is sufficiently recognized, and Defendant A lent the purchase price up to KRW 00 million without submitting a document, such as a loan certificate, or setting interest thereon.

Since it is difficult to accept the Defendants’ above assertion, the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the crime of forging private documents and the crime of forging the above investigation documents, E and G did not allow the Defendant B to prepare a new transaction contract in their own name, and E stated that if they were to obtain a proposal from Defendant B to prepare a new transaction contract for the purpose of submitting it to the bank, they would not have accepted it.

Therefore, E, G.