Defendant

B All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. A prosecutor (1) Defendant A - The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (4 months of imprisonment) is deemed to be too unhutiled and unfair.

(2) Defendant B- As to the forgery of a private document, the use of a falsified investigation document, and the fraud, on which Defendant B was acquitted at the lower court’s judgment, the charge of aiding and abetting and aiding should be acknowledged, since Defendant B was aware of, or did not have been aware of, the crime committed by Defendant A.

The sentence of the court below (4 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended execution) is too unhued and unfair.

B. The Defendant B’s sentence is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined Defendant A, taking into account all the factors of sentencing, including the fact that Defendant A made a confession and reflects on all the crimes, taking into account the following factors: (a) the specific method of punishment and the form of conduct in the crime; (b) the amount of fraud; and (c) the equity with the case where the judgment was rendered at the same time with the final and conclusive judgment; and (d) the specific relation with the crime revealed in the final and conclusive judgment

The previous convictions in the holding of the court below, which have to be sentenced in consideration of equity in the case where the crime of this case was tried together with the crime of this case, are sentenced to seven years of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of deceiving the total amount of 4.21 billion won by means similar to this case by Defendant A.

Considering the evidence of this case and the above elements of sentencing, the lower court’s determination of sentencing exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion.

There is no change in circumstances that it is unfair to maintain it as it is in the appellate court.

Since the lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed unfair because it is too unfasible, the Prosecutor’s argument of sentencing is rejected.

B. In full view of the following circumstances, the lower court determined that Defendant B was erroneous in the facts: (a) the acquisition and lease of the instant real estate was entirely entrusted to Defendant A; and (b) Defendant A was real estate.