The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for two years and for eight months, respectively.

except that this judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (1) Of the judgment of the court below, there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts or by misunderstanding the legal principles as follows, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. A) As to the forgery and uttering of private document, the tax invoice in the name of U Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “U”) was forged. However, this is only the sole offense of S, and the Defendant did not participate therein.

B) As to the breach of trust in the course of occupational breach of trust, Korea Credit Rating Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea Credit Rating”);

) H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “H”)

(i) The service contract for the business feasibility assessment report concluded with the Korea Credit Rating Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “I”) shall be subject to the Korean Credit Rating Agreement.

(C) As to the fraud related to the initial project cost of benefits under the pretext of the foregoing service contract, as the contract was entirely separate from the service contract for the business feasibility assessment report concluded with the Defendant, and the Defendant was not an executive officer of I, it is difficult to deem the Defendant to have violated his/her duty or inflicted property damage on the victim. (c) According to the records of this case, AA, AB, and S served as a director or employee at H, and the benefits paid or to be paid after the payment to the said person actually exist. Therefore, even if it was paid as the initial project cost, it cannot be deemed that

2) Even if it is not so unfair sentencing, the lower court’s sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) against the Defendant is too unreasonable. (b) On the part of the lower court’s judgment of misunderstanding of facts, the lower court’s finding of facts, based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor in the lower court, fully recognize the fact that the Defendants conspired to provide services to U and Q (hereinafter “ Q”) and acquired money from the victim as the initial project cost in the form of service cost, notwithstanding the absence of service cost to be paid to U and Q (hereinafter “T”), such as this part of the charges.

Nevertheless, this part.