The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of the purport of the grounds for appeal by the Defendant and the defense counsel (e.g., the Defendant’s mistake, and the head of the office of a certified judicial scrivener who received a request from G and Q only prepared application documents, etc. at a practical level, and the role and degree of involvement in each of the crimes of this case cannot be deemed to be significant, it is unfair for the lower court to have imposed imprisonment with prison labor for up to one year and six months, too unreasonable.

2. The defendant, as the chief executive officer of the certified judicial scrivener office, conspired with G, H, and D to forge the power of proxy for establishment of the right to collateral security under J's name, and submitted the power of proxy for establishment of the right to collateral security directly to the public official in charge of the registry office. The defendant's role and degree of involvement in each of the crimes in this case cannot be deemed to be less than that of the defendant, such as directly forging a certified copy of the U used as a means of deception of the crime in this case. G and Q whose degree of participation is relatively minor than the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for one year and two months, imprisonment for each of the crimes in this case; the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for two years at the Seoul Central District Court on February 3, 2005; the defendant was sentenced to two years for preparation of false securities; the crime of fabrication of private documents; the crime of uttering of the original notarial document; the crime of uttering of false entry in the original notarial deed; the defendant's motive and circumstance before and after the crime in this case; and the defendant's allegation in this case's grounds for appeal are not reasonable.

3. As the appeal by the defendant is groundless, Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act is not reasonable.