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

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

1. Determination of ex officio and on the grounds for appeal

A. The Defendants asserted as follows on the grounds of appeal that the Defendants rejected factual mistake and misunderstanding of legal principles.

① Defendant B did not contain any conspiracy to commit fraud against I among the facts charged in the first instance judgment.

② The Defendants did not have any intention to acquire by deception the facts charged in the first instance trial.

(3) Defendant A cannot use a receipt or deposit certificate as stated in the facts charged of the second instance judgment by forging it.

④ Defendant B’s printing out the document and the confirmation document as indicated in the facts charged in the judgment of the first instance court in KRW 3 is conducted without the purpose of the exercise, and thus, the acquittal should be pronounced. Defendant B submitted the document to the court for the purpose of explaining his claim in the relevant case. Thus, the same applies to the crime of copying the above investigation document.

In light of the records in comparison with the evidence duly adopted and examined by the relevant court below, the pertinent judgment of the court below is just, and all of the defendants' respective arguments are not accepted (Defendant B's defense counsel asserted that the judgment of the court of the court below of the third instance is contrary to the principle of prohibition against disadvantageous alteration on the premise that Defendant B requested formal trial against the summary order. However, it is clear in the records that Defendant B did not request formal trial, but the court was given a suspended sentence after referring it to the trial procedure, and it was sentenced to the above suspended sentence). (b) The judgment of the court of the court of the first instance that rejected the unfair argument for sentencing is reasonable. In full view of the following factors: the method, period, amount of damage, the circumstances after the crime, whether damage was recovered, Defendant B's criminal records, and the degree of punishment of Defendant A's main punishment, etc., of the crime of this case.