Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Although C, who is a counterfeited victim of the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing, expressed the Defendant’s intent not to punish the Defendant, the benefit and protection of the law of protecting the interest of the crime, such as the fabrication of securities and the fabrication of private documents, is the public trust in relation to securities and documents, and since each of the crimes of this case is a credit service provider that lends money to the Defendant, the expression of intent not to punish the Defendant is not a factor to be significantly considered in considering sentencing. Furthermore, the Defendant committed each of the crimes of this case without being aware during the period of repeated offense. Furthermore, the Defendant was a large number of forged securities and private documents; the Defendant borrowed 57 million won as the instant crime of this case; the Defendant did not repay most borrowed money; and the Defendant did not repay most borrowed money; the Defendant’s age, character, home environment, motive and circumstance leading to the instant crime; and circumstances after the crime, etc., taking into account all the records and arguments of this case, the lower court’s punishment (one and half years of imprisonment) is not adequate.