All the judgment below against the Defendants is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor of two years and six months, and Defendant B.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendants received a false statement from AP, which was known at the office of a certified judicial scrivener working for Defendant B, about the facts-finding (the second instance court below's judgment). Since the Defendants presented to the Defendants a copy of the passport, a copy of the registration right, and a letter of certification for signature, etc., the Defendants did not have to believe that the Defendants were X. Thus, there was no fact of deceiving the victims in collusion with the false statement.

(2) The alteration portion of the official document (defendant A) was limited to the fact that the Defendant heard the words that the land inheritor should be found from Q and D, and delivered money to AS with a person called the president of the RR and a person AS, and there was no alteration of the original copy of the facts charged.

B. Each sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants [Defendant A (the 2 years of imprisonment with prison labor for the first instance court, the 2 years of imprisonment for the second instance court, the 1 year of imprisonment for the second instance court), and Defendant B (the 1 and 2th instance court’s imprisonment for each of the 8 months)]

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendants ex officio, the appeal case against the judgment below was consolidated. Each of the offenses against the Defendants in the judgment below against the Defendants is a concurrent offense relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and should be punished as a single sentence within the scope of the term of punishment increased by concurrent offenses in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the judgment of the court below cannot be reversed in its entirety.

However, even if there are such reasons for ex officio destruction, the Defendants’ assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of the court, and this will be examined below.

3. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court as to the Defendants’ assertion on the fraud portion, namely, XA. at the time of the contract.