Of the judgment of the court below of first instance, the part against Defendant C and the part against Defendant C of the judgment of the court below of second instance shall be reversed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment of the first instance trial decision (6 months of imprisonment) and the second instance trial decision (6 months of imprisonment) against Defendant C (unfair sentencing) are too unreasonable.

B. The 2nd adjudication decision against Defendant AA (unfair sentencing) is too unreasonable. The 4 months imprisonment with prison labor) is too unreasonable.

(c)

Defendant

AB(unfair sentencing) The 2nd judgment decision (6 months of imprisonment) against the defendant is too unreasonable.

(d)

In full view of the prosecutor (as to the defendant C), the prosecutor (as to the non-guilty part of the judgment of the court of first instance), and the prosecutor’s statement (as to the non-guilty part of the judgment of the court of first instance), although the defendant conspireds with A, B, etc. in sequence and could sufficiently recognize the forgery of the I-registered lease contract, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant

(2) The sentence of the first instance judgment (6 months of imprisonment) against the illegal defendant is too uncomfortable and unfair.

2. Determination

A. (1) With respect to the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts against Defendant C, the prosecutor bears the burden of proving the facts prosecuted in a criminal trial (the part of acquittal in the judgment of the court of first instance). The conviction should be based on the evidence with probative value that leads the judge to feel true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is suspicion of guilt against the defendant, it shall be determined as the benefit of the defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 94Do3309 delivered on April 12, 1996). The court below acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged in light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone proves that this part of the facts charged is beyond reasonable doubt.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case cannot be seen as the same purport.