Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and four months.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, attached Form.

In particular, the defendant prepared a document in his name with the above family members, relatives, and neighbors one time with the explicit consent of them, and then prepared a document again in his name, not with the explicit consent, but with the restriction of the use of the name only once in the first place, it can be deemed that there exists the presumed consent of the nominal owner in the re-written document.

② Summary Order became final and conclusive on the same factual basis with respect to the crime of forging some private documents or uttering of the said private document.

(2) In the case of fraud by using a document prepared with the consent to use the name in the name, there is intent to deception.

Since it cannot be seen as a crime of fraud, it is not established.

② Since the part of the Defendant’s payment of the mobile phone price did not cause any damage to the victim, it should be excluded from the amount of damage caused by fraud.

2) Improper sentencing (as to the entire judgment of the court below), the sentence (the sentence of the court below of first instance: imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months, and imprisonment with prison labor for a period of six months) of the court below is too unreasonable.

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

Article 1 The court of first instance determines that the service of the defendant to the defendant to the public shall be made by means of serving public notice on August 24, 2016, and Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings on October 20, 2016 and the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings