The Defendants’ appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding 1) Defendant A is the actual owner of the second floor building on the ground (hereinafter “instant building”) in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Seoul, with the authority to dispose of the said building at the time of preparing a lease agreement on the building around January 7, 2013 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), or has the same authority as such, as Defendant A was entitled to dispose of the said building at the time of preparing the lease agreement on the building (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

Since it is believed that there is no intention to commit the crime of the above Article in private documents.

On the other hand, Defendant B did not have conspired or participated in the crime of forging a private document by Defendant A.

2) Defendant B believed that the instant lease agreement was genuine and submitted to the court where the relevant civil procedure is pending, and thus, did not have any intent to exercise the said investigation document and attempted fraud.

On the other hand, there is no fact that Defendant A conspiredd or participated in the exercise of the above investigation documents and the crime of attempted fraud by Defendant B.

B. The sentence sentenced by the court below (Defendant A: a fine of 4 million won, Defendant B: a fine of 5 million won) against the illegal Defendants in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Although the Defendants alleged that the facts of the Defendants were erroneous, the lower court also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part, the lower court rejected the Defendants’ above assertion on the grounds of detailed reasons in the “judgment on the Defendants and their defense counsel’s assertion” of the judgment, and found the Defendants guilty of all the charges of this case.

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts as alleged by the defendants.

Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion of factual mistake is rejected.

1) Article 1 of the Private Document 1 of the same Act is located.