Defendant

The judgment of the court below against A (excluding the part of rejection of application for compensation among the judgment of the court of first instance) shall be reversed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts (the act of forging a private document and uttering of a falsified investigation document in the judgment of the court of first instance) did not have forged or used the water purifier there contract under the name of E. The court below found the Defendant guilty of this part of the charges is erroneous. 2) Each punishment (the judgment of the court of first instance: imprisonment with prison labor for a period of one year and six months; fine of two million won: the judgment of the court of second instance: imprisonment with prison labor for a period of two million won; and imprisonment with prison labor for a period of six months) sentenced by the

B. Defendant AH 1 did not commit a crime of misunderstanding of facts (a crime of extortion). The lower court’s finding the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous. 2) The sentence (6 months of imprisonment and 2 years of suspended execution) sentenced by the lower court of unfair sentencing (the third lower court) is too unreasonable.

C. The sentence imposed by the public prosecutor (defendant AH) on the defendant AH is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Ex officio determination (part against Defendant A) conducted a consolidated examination of each appeal case against Defendant A.

Defendant

Of the judgment of the court below in the first and third judgment and the second judgment, each of the crimes except the violation of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act among the crimes of each of the judgment of the court below in the second judgment is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, one punishment shall be sentenced pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below, including the violation of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts as to the forgery of private documents and the uttering of private documents in the judgment of the court of first instance is still subject to the judgment of the court of first instance, notwithstanding the above reasons for reversal.

B. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts by Defendant A 1) The facts charged in this part of the facts charged [the Defendant who forged private documents knew of the personal information of E to the employees of the same Tyyang post around January 10, 2012, and said part of the facts charged.