All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Regarding the misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (Defendant 1), in relation to the forgery of private documents, the uttering thereof, and the attempted fraud, the indication of C victim D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Co.”), is omitted.

(2) As to the Defendant’s obligation to pay the construction cost, the Defendant was merely KRW 100 million, and the Defendant was sent by facsimile the instant contract with D’s corporate seal affixed thereon, and only prepared the “contractor” part of the said contract. The Defendant did not have forged and submitted to the court a letter of 100 million fake construction contract. (2) As to the fact of false accusation, the Defendant asserted that G and H had directly written and received the instant written confirmation from the Defendant and filed a complaint with the court to point out the instant written confirmation. Therefore, there was no intention to do so.

3) In relation to each fraud against the victim N,O, and Q, the Defendant had the intent and ability to pay the construction cost at the time, and thus, did not induce the said victims. B. The lower court’s imprisonment with labor (one year of imprisonment) is too excessive or too heavy (the Defendant).

2. Determination

A. Determination on the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles 1) the lower court also argued that the Defendant is identical to the assertion in this part of the grounds for appeal, and the lower court rejected the aforementioned assertion in detail with the reasoning of the judgment. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment after closely examining the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court appears to have a reasonable ground for raising an objection to the ruling of recommending reconciliation with the purport that ① the Defendant alleged that the obligation for construction cost was merely KRW 120 million is paid, and ② the Defendant alleged that the obligation for construction cost was merely KRW 100 million was paid as at the initial claim (Dasan District Court Decision 2015No3757).