All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant B (1) and misunderstanding of the legal principles as to Defendant B (1)’s quasi-Fraud) did not know the fact that the victim K (hereinafter “victim”) had a intellectual obstacle, and thus, did not have a criminal intent to commit fraud, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the charges by misapprehending the legal doctrine or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

(2) In light of the legal principles as to the forgery of private documents and the exercise of the aforementioned investigation documents, the instant real estate sale contract and the real estate lease contract are directly signed or sealed by the nominal owner, and thus, cannot be deemed as forgery. However, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged by misapprehending the legal principles.

(3) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (two years of suspended sentence for one year) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant C (1) was unaware of the fact that the Defendant had a intellectual disability to the victim, and there was no criminal intent to commit the forgery of a private document and the uttering of a falsified investigation document, and the facts constituting the crime No. 2 of the lower judgment.

B. (1) Although there was no participation in the process of receiving an application for registration of ownership transfer as to paragraph (1), the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged.

(2) In the misapprehension of the legal principles, each of the instant real estate transaction agreement, real estate lease agreement, commercial housing transaction agreement, and power of attorney cannot be deemed to be a forgery because the victim directly signed by the nominal owner. The facts constituting the crime of the lower judgment are as stated in the judgment.

B. As to paragraphs (2) and (3), the power of attorney was presented to the victim who is the delegating person and cannot be an “exercise.” However, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

(3) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (two years of suspended sentence in August) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendants knew of the Defendants’ intellectual obstacle to the victim, and the lower court made the same assertion at the lower court, and the lower court made the judgment.