All appeals filed by the Defendants and the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A’s misunderstanding of the facts (the crime of forging a private document and uttering of a falsified document as indicated in the judgment of the court below) is limited to purchasing a core chip from joint Defendant B, and there was no conspiracy of a private document committed by B to open a core chip and a conspiracy of participating in the crime of uttering of a falsified investigation document.

B. Each sentence of the lower court (Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for 1 year and 2 months, Defendant B: 10 months of suspended sentence, 2 years of suspended sentence, community service time for 80 hours) which is unfair due to the Defendants’ unfair sentencing is too unreasonable (Defendant B explicitly withdrawn the assertion of mistake of facts on the first trial date).

The prosecutor (unfair sentencing)'s each sentence of the court below is unfair because it is too unhued.

2. Determination

A. Determination as to Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts 1) In the case of a joint principal offender who has publicly recruited the relevant legal principles, the public offering does not require any legal penalty, but only constitutes a combination of intent of two or more persons to jointly process and realize a crime, and thus, there was no overall conspiracy.

Even if there is a conspiracy between several persons, and if the combination of doctors is carried out either successively or implicitly, the conspiracy is established, and even those who did not directly participate in the execution, they are held criminal liability as a joint principal offender for the act of other accomplices (Supreme Court Decision 97Do1720 delivered on October 10, 197). (2) The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, which were duly adopted and investigated by the court below. (1) The defendant, although he intended to sell the so-called large chip to a third party, could not directly open the so-called large chip, he was essential for the execution of the crime. (2) The defendant was involved in the crime under the defendant's proposal, and specifically, the defendant was in charge of soliciting and selling large chip buyers, and the sales of the mobile chip.