The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 15 million.

The above fines are imposed by the Defendants.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A, in collusion with Defendant B, did not have forged the instant real estate lease agreement in the name of G, either directly or by giving a third party instructions.

At the time, there was a discussion about transferring “H” that Defendant B had been operated by himself, but Defendant B did not have a partnership relationship with Defendant B.

In addition, Defendant B independently established I (State) and promoted the registration of the pertinent business entity, even if the crime of this case was recognized, it is a single criminal act by Defendant B’s instruction, etc.

Nevertheless, the court below also found Defendant A guilty by recognizing a public contest with Defendant B, and the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) Defendant B did not have forged the instant real estate lease agreement in collusion with Defendant A on his own or by giving instructions to a third party.

At the time, it was true that Defendant A, who was missing from management difficulties related to the operation of “H”, invested the amount equivalent to KRW 70,000,000 and carried out the business as a partnership with the corporation of the above company. However, Defendant A was found to have committed the crime of this case independently in the process of promoting the business registration, etc. in order to obtain investments from himself/herself without any monetary pressure.

Nevertheless, the court below found Defendant B guilty by recognizing a public conspiracy with Defendant A, and the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment of each sentence (six months of imprisonment) sentenced by the lower court against the Defendants is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal prior to the judgment on the grounds of ex officio appeal.

A public prosecutor has raised an objection to the trial.