The judgment below

Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than four months.

, however, the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, in particular E's court below's decision and the party oral statement, the court below found Defendant A guilty of the facts charged in this case, although it can be sufficiently recognized as guilty, and the court below pronounced Defendant A not guilty. Such judgment of the court below is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts as to the facts charged in this case’s indictment (Evidence No. 79 of the evidence record, hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”).

In relation to the preparation process of the above loan certificate, there was a supplementary statement on some different facts from the facts in the creditor, date of preparation, and date of borrowing, which was Defendant B’s official seal, but this is based on the comprehensive blank supplement right delegated by the victim E in advance, so Defendant B cannot be deemed to have forged the above loan certificate. Therefore, even though Defendant B is not guilty, the lower court found Defendant B guilty of the charge of forging the private document of this case, the crime of uttering of the investigate document of this case, and the crime of attempted fraud, which is premised on the forgery of the loan certificate of this case, cannot be established, the lower court found Defendant B guilty of all of the charges. In so doing, the lower court erred by misunderstanding of facts. 2) In so determining, the sentence (two months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and eight hours of community service order)

2. Determination

A. The first prosecutor of the judgment on the appeal against Defendant A made a request for a modification of an indictment to the effect that “the prosecutor issued KRW 1,650,000 after deducting KRW 300,000 in advance interest and KRW 50,000 in advance under the pretext of notarial fees and 400,000 in advance interest,” among the facts charged against Defendant A, to the extent that it is recognized as identical to the original facts charged, after going through lawful procedures, the prosecutor applied for a modification of an indictment to the effect that “the prosecutor issued KRW 1,50,000 after deducting KRW 50,000 in advance under the pretext of 40,000 and in the name of notarial fees,” and this court was modified

Therefore, Defendant .