All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is likely to have forged C’s share transfer contract under the name of the Defendants, such as the contents written in the complaint submitted by the Defendants. In this case, the court below found the Defendants not guilty in accordance with the presumption of innocence, thereby finding the Defendants guilty. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles and misunderstanding the legal principles.

2. The Defendants also asserted the same assertion in the lower court, and the lower court, following the summary of the evidence of the lower judgment, was “judgment on the assertion of the Defendants and the defense counsel.”

2.(b)

As stated in the judgment, the Defendants’ act constitutes a crime of false accusation by recognizing detailed facts as stated in the judgment.

In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the court below's aforementioned fact finding and determination is just and there is no error of law by mistake of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the Defendants.

The employee I of the instant company also entered into a stock acquisition agreement with C, and I, in 2015, made a stock acquisition agreement by explaining that C would guarantee the principal in preparation for the case where C would know well the company would know well, and entered into the contract two times, and the first contract did not contain any special terms related to the guarantee of principal, but the second contract was written in the same letter.

If I purchased shares in the same way, the defendants who were in a similar position would also have a high possibility of being transferred shares under the same conditions, and the contract is also prepared in a similar way.

(b) enter into the contract after amendment;