[Defendant A] All appeals filed by Defendant and Prosecutor are dismissed.

[Defendant B] The part of the lower judgment’s acquittal is guilty.

(a) do not object to this;

On November 14, 2017, the Defendant stated that “The Defendant was forgotten of the fact that he borrowed money from the victim” in order to relieve the Defendant’s liability for the crime in the process of being investigated as a witness by the police on November 14, 2017.

Although the victim borrowed money from the victim, the victim did not notify A of it.

In the process of being investigated by the prosecution on May 27, 2019, “10 million won A borrowed money from the victim and he/she merely sent a text message that he/she merely borrowed money from the victim to the victim under the direction of A.

The statement was reversed by referring to 'the statement of intention and the denial of suspicion'.

In full view of the above facts, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant conspireds to commit the fraud of A as shown in paragraph (2) of the facts charged, and therefore, the court below erred by mistake of facts in finding the not guilty of this part

* The summary of the judgment of the court below, such as the victim, is invoked as it is in the judgment of the court of appeal.

A refers to Co-Defendant A, and the victim refers to D.

B. As to the display of a falsified document and the display of a falsified document, U.S., the legal representative of a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the existence of an obligation, stated in the court below that “Before submitting a preparatory document, U.S., who was the legal representative of the lawsuit seeking confirmation of the existence of an obligation, shall enter and submit a preparatory document in the Kakao Stockholm group hosting room with the Defendant and A. The currency was not well at the time, and the documents were submitted upon receiving a reply from the Defendant who was mainly responsible for the practical part at the time,” and that “1” was confirmed to the effect that “the documents sent by the Defendant were read in the group hosting room, even if there was no answer from the Defendants.”

The defendant solves the same thing as the house or the tea.