All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The resolution of dismissal of the defendant against the defendant (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and improper sentencing) is null and void because it did not meet the quorum requirements, and the defendant did not have the intent to prepare private documents and to exercise such intention with respect to the crime of accompanying the defendant.

The punishment sentenced by the court below is too heavy.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor (unfair sentencing) by the lower court is too minor.

2. Determination

A. The lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine on the grounds of appeal, as indicated in its reasoning, and sentenced the Defendant guilty.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records of this case and closely, the judgment of the court below is correct, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles or misconception of the facts alleged by the defendant (the defendant asserted invalidation on the grounds of a quorum, but with respect to this, the above court rejected the defendant's assertion on the ground that the dismissal resolution of this case satisfies the quorum of the Seoul Central District Court 2015Kahap 8152. Accordingly, the defendant's mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are without merit.

B. There is a high possibility of criticism against the defendant in light of the background of the crime and the circumstances after the crime.

There is a lack of resistance against the defendant.

However, in full view of all the sentencing conditions in the records of the instant case, including the content and nature of the letter of intent used in the qualification of the instant case, substantial damage caused by the instant crime and the Defendant’s profits without any criminal records, the same criminal records and fines, the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, and the situation before and after the instant crime, etc., the punishment sentenced by the lower court appears to be within a reasonable scope, and there is no change in the reason for sentencing.

Therefore, the argument that the sentencing of the defendant and the prosecutor is unfair is without merit.

3. Conclusion