The Defendants’ appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts (as to the forgery of private documents and the uttering of falsified investigation documents), Defendant A did not forge the application for the transfer of an ambulances vehicle as stated in this part of the facts charged. Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts. 2) The sentence of the court below on unreasonable sentencing (in 10 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended execution, 120 hours of community service, 120

B. Defendant B’s imprisonment (two months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and one hundred and twenty hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court in determining the mistake of facts by Defendant A, Defendant A can be recognized as having forged an application for the transfer of an ambulances in collusion with C as stated in this part of the facts charged, and used the forged application for the transfer of an ambulances. Therefore, the lower court did not err in matters of mistake of facts as alleged by Defendant A.

① In the police station, the first-aid driver T stated to the effect that “When a notice of imposition of a fine for negligence is erroneous, the relevant engineer may be exempted from liability to Defendant A. When deemed that exemption can be granted, Defendant A prepared documents related to the request for exemption to emergency medical technicians or nurses, and submitted documents prepared by Defendant A.” (2019 order5812 investigation records 806 pages) and the prosecutor’s office also stated to the same effect.

(2019 Highest 5812 Investigation Records 1173). (2) An emergency medical technician stated in the police that “Defendant A and a person in charge have filed an application for transfer of an ambulances with a copy of the signature” (2019 Highest 5812 Investigation Records 815,816 pages), and the prosecutor also stated that “A was aware that the application was a copy at the time of receiving the application for transfer of an ambulances from the Defendant A.”

(2019 order5812 Investigation Records, 1198, 1199).3