The judgment below

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

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than three years and six months.

Defendant

A.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s sentencing (4 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) In the event of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, Defendant B merely mediated the victim Telecommunication lease contract at the request of the J, and did not assist Defendant A and J to commit fraud.

(2) The lower court’s sentencing (eight months of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

C. The lower court’s sentencing is too uncomfortable and unfair.

2. Ex officio determination (as to Defendant A), we examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by Defendant A and the prosecutor.

First, among the facts charged against Defendant A, the forgery of a private document and the uttering of a private document on the application for registration of transfer in Chapter 5, and the uttering of a forged public document are judged not to be guilty as follows.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty and further rendered a single sentence in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act by deeming that the convicted part of the judgment of the lower court was in a concurrent crime relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act

Second, in the case of exercising multiple forged private documents en bloc, there is a conceptual concurrence relationship between several crimes of uttering of falsified private documents.

Therefore, among the facts charged against Defendant A, the pertinent used car sales contract and the change of the rent-a-car business plan (automobile) as stated in Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 5 in the annexed Table 5 of the crime committed against Defendant A shall be deemed as the ordinary concurrent crimes committed by submitting the report to the public official in charge of the competent authority. However, the lower court erred in its judgment.

Ultimately, among the judgment of the court below, there is an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment due to misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, and this cannot be exempted from the whole reversal.

(1) The summary of the facts charged is as follows: H, I, J andO concerning the application for the registration of transfer in Chapter 5.