The convictions in the first and third judgment and the second judgment shall be reversed, respectively.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor of one year and eight months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to Defendant A (the judgment of the court below Nos. 1 and 3) and misunderstanding of facts in the judgment of the court below of the court below of 3, Defendant A only prepared a opening contract with respect to the five mobile phones, and there was no fact that Defendant A received the mobile phone or acquired the profit by selling it.

(B) As to the forgery of each private document and the uttering of a falsified document in the judgment of the court below of the third instance, Defendant A did not forge or use each private document, but only delivered a copy of the resident registration certificate and a certified copy of the resident registration to AD with the consent of F, as it is necessary for AD to make the certificate of a construction mid-term business operator.

(2) The sentencing of the lower court on the Defendant A of unreasonable sentencing (the first instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for 1 year and 3 years: imprisonment with prison labor for 1 year) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentencing against Defendant E (as to the lower court’s judgment No. 2 and 3) (as to the Defendant E, 10 months of imprisonment and 3 years of imprisonment: 1 year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

C. The judgment of the court below which acquitted Defendant E of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts, even though the prosecutor (the second judgment of the court below) found the fraud among the judgment of the court below of second instance, and according to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, Defendant E was jointly involved in the crime of fraud concerning food costs.

(2) The lower court’s sentencing on Defendant E of unreasonable sentencing (Article 2: 10 months of imprisonment) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination of the grounds for appeal for mistake of facts by Defendant A and the prosecutor

A. (1) According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the fact that Defendant A received on April 16, 2013 from Defendant A’s store “Nice Fagrag” (the investigative record page 573).