All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A(1) did not participate in the preparation of each transaction agreement (hereinafter “each transaction agreement of this case”) as indicated in the judgment of the court below, and Defendant B prepared each transaction agreement of this case with Defendant C.

2) Even if the Defendants drafted each of the instant sales contracts, Defendant A was delegated the disposal of each of the instant lands before birth from the deceased D (hereinafter “the Deceased”) and was delegated the disposal of each of the instant lands by the inheritors after the deceased’s death. As such, each of the instant sales contracts was forged with the authority to prepare each of the instant sales contracts.

shall not be deemed to exist.

3) Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged against Defendant A or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Defendant A was delegated the disposition by the inheritors of each of the instant lands, and Defendant B purchased each of the instant lands from Defendant A, and the inheritors actively cooperated with each of the instant lands so that they can register the transfer of ownership.

Since each contract of this case was prepared according to the delegation of the heir who has the right to dispose of each land of this case, the Defendants forged it.

shall not be deemed to exist.

In doing so, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged against Defendant B or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(c)

Defendant

C1) Of the facts charged against Defendant C, the part on which Defendant C prepared and submitted documents necessary for the application for registration of real estate using the name of LA certified judicial scrivener, but the seal of LA is affixed and sealed by the AP, which is a cause of the affairs of LAA certified judicial scrivener office, so it is difficult to be deemed as the forgery of private documents, and there is no violation of law by law.

However, all the charges against Defendant C are guilty.