A. The crime of forging legal principles, uttering of a private document, and uttering of a private document of this case is merely a means to commit the crime of fraud of this case. Each of the crimes of this case is an inclusive crime.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which aggravated concurrent crimes on the ground that each of the crimes of this case was in the concurrent crimes relationship is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the number of crimes.

B. In light of the various sentencing conditions of the instant case, the lower court’s imprisonment (two years of imprisonment) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles, the crime of forging private documents of this case, the crime of uttering of private document of this case, and the crime of uttering of private document of this case shall aim at protecting public legal interests protecting transaction credibility and safety regarding documents. Since fraud is a crime against private property legal interests and its legal interest differs, it is reasonable to deem that each crime of this case is in the relation of concurrent crimes.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 79Do840, Jul. 10, 1979). Therefore, the Defendant’s above assertion cannot be accepted.

B. We examine the judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, and the fact that the Defendant acknowledges both the facts of each of the instant crimes and reflects his mistake, etc. favorable to the Defendant.

However, the crime of this case was committed by the defendant, an insurance solicitor of the victim company, who is an insurance solicitor of the victim company, by forging documents under the name of the victim company several times, and acquired a total of KRW 160 million from the victim company as a loan for the insurance terms and conditions, and the nature of the crime is bad in light of the methods of the crime, the amount of damage amount, etc., ② the victim company was not agreed with the victim company, ② the victim company was not able to recover damage, ③ the defendant was punished for suspended execution due to the same crime, ④ the defendant was arrested before detention on June 18, 2010.