All appeals filed by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A did not have conspired with Defendant B as stated in the instant facts charged, and it was only made between Defendant B and Defendant I.

B) As to Defendant B’s charge of the forgery of securities and the forgery of a letter of delegation, Defendant B only issued a promissory note under the name of I and made the power of attorney, and did not forge the said promissory note and the power of attorney.

C) Notwithstanding the above circumstances, the lower court’s judgment that found Defendant A guilty of this part of the facts charged in this case and this part of the facts charged against Defendant B was erroneous in misapprehending the facts.

2) The lower court’s sentence (Defendant A: imprisonment with prison labor for eight months, Defendant B: imprisonment with prison labor for six months) against the illegal Defendants is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendants is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the Defendants’ assertion of mistake of facts

A. Determination as to Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts is established by satisfying the subjective requirements of the crime committed through the intent of co-processing and the functional control based on the intent of co-processing. However, even if the co-offenders did not directly share and implement part of the elements of the constituent act, when considering the status, role, control or influence over the progress of the crime, etc. as a whole, if it is acknowledged that the functional control through the essential contribution to the crime exists, not just as a simple conspiracy, but as a joint principal offender for the crime committed by another publicly recruited (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do1623, Dec. 22, 2006; 2007Do235, Apr. 26, 2007).