All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Scope of adjudication of this court;

A. Of the facts charged against Defendant B, the lower court dismissed the prosecution against Defendant G on the charge of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) and sentenced Defendant B guilty of the remainder of the facts charged.

In this regard, the defendant and the prosecutor appealed only the guilty part, and the rejection part of the prosecution which was not appealed by the defendant and the prosecutor is separated, so this part is excluded from the scope of the trial.

B. Where an appeal is filed against a judgment of partial conviction of a compensation order, the confirmation of a compensation order shall be prevented, and the compensation order shall be transferred to the appellate court along with the accused case (Article 33(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings). Moreover, no appeal may be filed against the judgment dismissing the application for compensation.

(Article 32(4) of the same Act. The court below dismissed the application for compensation filed by U, V, W, X, Y, Z, AAB, AC, AD, AE, AE, AF, AH, AI, AJ, AK, AK, AM, AO, AP, AP, AP, Q, ATR, ATS, ATS, AU, and AV, and the above rejection is excluded from the scope of the trial of this Court.

In addition, the lower court accepted each application for compensation filed by H, I, J, K, M, M, N, P, Q, Q, R, T, and G, and Defendant A did not assert the grounds for appeal regarding the cited part of the lower judgment’s compensation order. Even if ex officio examination was conducted, the grounds for cancelling or changing the cited part of the lower judgment cannot be found. Thus, the cited part of the lower judgment’s compensation order remains intact.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and uttering of a private document forgery and a false investigation document, the Defendant obtained approval from Q, and prepared a power of attorney in Q Q’s name.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that the defendant forged the power of attorney in Q Q without the consent of Q Q.