1. Of the judgment of the court below, the part of the crime No. 1-B through D of the judgment of the court below against Defendant B is reversed.

A. Defendant .

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor by mistake of facts (the prosecutor and the Defendants’ acquittal part), Defendant A forged the power of attorney for the verification of seal imprint under the name of AB on January 14, 2013, and the Defendants conspired to commit each forgery of the power of attorney in the name of AB on January 16, 2013, an application for the cancellation of automobile mortgage, a certificate for the cancellation of automobile mortgage, and a certificate for the cancellation of automobile mortgage and the certificate for the loss of mortgage mortgage, but the lower court acquitted the Defendants of this part of the facts charged on a different premise,

B. While Defendant B asserts that the punishment sentenced by the court below to Defendant B (one hundred months of imprisonment and four months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime No. 1-A and No. 2-B-D as indicated in the judgment below) was excessively unreasonable, Defendant B asserts that the sentence of punishment sentenced by the court below to Defendant B is too unfilled and unfair, the prosecutor asserts that the sentence of the court below is too unfasible and unfair.

2. Determination as to the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts

A. On January 14, 2013, the summary of the facts charged in this part of the charges is as follows: (a) on January 14, 2013, the Defendant: (b) committed the forgery of a private document and the uttering of the said investigation document against Defendant A; (c) on January 14, 2013, the Defendant: (a) made the delegation form for the certification of a seal imprint without authority in the column of “AB”, “AF”, and “AF” and “AF 114 Dong 1803, Namyang-si, AB-si; (d) forged a letter of delegation for the certification of a seal imprint under the name of AB, a private document, which is a private document, and (e) displayed it to both States AH as if the said letter of delegation was duly constituted.

2) On January 16, 2013, the Defendants were holding a private document forgery and an event of the aforementioned investigation document against the Defendants in collusion with the intent of uttering, and without authority, the Defendants are in the two-way civil petition service center located in Yangju-ro 1533 on January 16, 2013 without authority. In so doing, the Defendants are in the AI administration.