The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for one year and six months.

provided that this judgment has become final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant-Appellant, a mistake of facts, agreed to repay KRW 170 million instead of East F, and the Defendant-A made the proxy of this case, a notarial deed and written agreement for a monetary loan for consumption, or delegated the right to make such a statement to Defendant-A.

Therefore, it is unreasonable that G filed a complaint against the above facts, such as the crime of forging private documents, etc., and the defendants filed a complaint against G on the grounds of false accusation is legitimate exercise of rights.

Even if Defendant A committed a mistake, such as forging documents under the name of G, Defendant B did not have any participation therein.

Nevertheless, the court below convicted the Defendants of the facts charged in this case by misunderstanding the facts.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined as to the assertion of mistake of facts, on the grounds of the fact that G did not have any legal obligation to repay the said F’s debt, that in light of the previous and previous circumstances, G cannot easily be compared with the empirical rule to the effect that it agreed that it would substitute for a large amount of KRW 170 million, and that the power of attorney for the commission of the preparation of a notarial deed for cash loan was prepared in the blank space, that the power of attorney for the commission of the preparation of the notarial deed was not held by the Defendants, that it did not hold the original written agreement, that Defendant A did not have a copy of the written agreement entered in the office of G by facsimile to Defendant B’s office, and sent the copy of the said agreement by facsimile to Defendant B’s office, even though there was no fact that G had agreed to substitute for the said amount of KRW 170 million,000,000,000, which was the same as that of the delivery of the copy of the said agreement.

In addition, the court below held that Defendant B was the above power of attorney and vice versa.