All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal asserts that the Defendant is too unafford by the lower court’s punishment (6 months of imprisonment and suspension of sentence) so long as it is unreasonable, and the prosecutor asserts that the lower court’s punishment is too unafford and unfair.

2. The Defendant, on the ground that he forged the name of E, a South-North Korean, and committed a crime such as forging a private document, was guilty of perjury. The Defendant testified in the above trial and the nature of the crime in light of the motive, content, etc. of the crime of this case is not less complicated, etc., is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the defendant recognized his mistake and speaks against the defendant, E does not want the punishment of the defendant, and the defendant initially appears to have made a statement different from the fact in the prior trial (the part that the proxy proxy statement of March 10, 2013 and the part that the defendant stated that he did not request the above private person). The defendant voluntarily made a false statement, such as the criminal facts in the judgment of the court below, in an investigation agency, and voluntarily made a false statement at the investigation agency, and made a false statement, which is in the same manner as the criminal facts in the judgment of the court below, and there are some circumstances to consider the circumstances leading up to the crime in this case. The defendant appears to have made a statement contrary to memory regarding some statements in the prior trial, and the defendant was treated disadvantageously in the process of inheritance of his parent, and the large amount of H did not have any contact with the defendant Eul on September 18, 2013, with the power of attorney of the defendant to make a comprehensive admission to 310,013.

It is argued to the effect that the aforementioned assertion is false and misleading to the effect that each crime in the preceding trial and the instant crime were committed. However, the Defendant appears to have certain credibility.