1. The judgment below is reversed.

2. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for ten months;

3.Provided, That for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles regarding ① Forgery of a private document and the uttering of a falsified document, the Defendant merely prepared and used the instant proxy form with the authority to receive the E insurance money delegated by I, and there was no use of the instant proxy form. ② With respect to fraud, the victim insurance company paid the agreed insurance money according to the occurrence of an insured incident, which is the death of the insured E, and thus, the victim insurance company did not incur any property damage to the victim, and thus, the crime of fraud cannot be established against the Defendant. 2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court of unfair sentencing (10 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended execution, 80 hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the trial of the trial of the case, the ex officio determination prosecutor applied for changes to the phrase “an employee in the name of the victim” in paragraph (3) of the facts charged in this case to “an employee in the name of the victim, who was in bad faith,” and the subject of the trial was changed by this court’s permission, and the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, and we will examine below.

B. In light of the following facts and circumstances that can be recognized by the lower court and the first instance court’s duly adopted and investigated evidence regarding the forgery of private documents and the uttering of falsified investigation documents, the Defendant may fully recognize the fact that he/she forged the power of attorney in the first name as stated in this part of the facts charged and uses it.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

(1) "A wife E is a liver cancer" in the police.