All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., a two-year imprisonment and a three-year suspended sentence) that the lower court sentenced the Defendants are deemed to be too uneasible and unfair.

2. The lower court, based on its stated reasoning, sentenced the Defendants to the above punishment.

The circumstances unfavorable to the sentencing that the prosecutor asserts as the reason for appeal, namely, the fact that the Defendants caused damage to the victim by promoting real estate development without co-owners’ delegation or consent, and that the Defendants forged private documents as well as public documents in the process, are likely to be sufficiently considered in the lower court’s sentencing.

In full view of such circumstances and various other circumstances described in the “decision of sentencing” column of the lower judgment, including the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, health status, family relationship, means and consequence of the crime, and the sentencing guidelines determined by the Supreme Court’s Sentencing Committee, the sentencing of the lower court is not deemed to be less than the reasonable scope of discretion, and there is no particular change in circumstances in the sentencing conditions in the trial, and thus, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the lower court.

The prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. The appeal against the Defendants by the prosecutor in conclusion is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.