The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A 6 months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime set forth in Section 1 of its ruling.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of Defendant A (1) misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine (the part concerning the crime of forging a private document and the fraud of the above investigation document), the relationship between the Defendant I and I, and the circumstance in which the Defendant prepared a lease agreement under the name of I, it is presumed that the Defendant would have accepted it as a matter of course if he knew that the contract was prepared under the name of I. However, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of each charge of this part of this case by misunderstanding of the facts or by misunderstanding of the legal principles

(2) The punishment sentenced by the court below to Defendant A (the punishment No. 1 of the judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for 4 months, and each crime No. 1-B of the judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for 2 months) is too unreasonable.

B. Each sentence (Defendant A: the same shall apply to the above, Defendant B: imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months; imprisonment for 2 years; community service order for 80 hours; lecture order for the prevention of sexual traffic for 40 hours; and collection of 6.24 million won) that the lower court sentenced the Defendants is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated at the lower court’s judgment as to Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts and legal principles, i.e.,: (a) at the time of undergoing an investigation by the police, I merely lent its name by purchasing a building located in Gwangju Dong-gu H (hereinafter “instant building”); (b) by entrusting the Defendant to prepare a lease agreement on the instant building; and (c) only stated that G was merely to allow the Defendant to use its name in preparing a sales contract on the instant building; and (b) Defendant A also stated that it would not allow the use of its name in preparing a lease agreement with B, if the Prosecutor’s position was made at the time of the investigation by the police.

(b) a statement;