A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts (as to the part on the fraudulent act of the judgment of the court below, and the part on the use of a falsified document), the victim G knew that each loan certificate prepared by the defendant was forged, and that the actual borrower was the defendant, and lent money with well-known knowledge of the economic situation of the defendant in order to obtain high interest. Thus, even though the crime of fraud and the use of a falsified document was not established in the judgment of the court below, the judgment of the court below which found the guilty of this part of the facts charged was erroneous or erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. 2) Even if not, the sentence (as to the judgment of the court below, KRW 1: a fine of KRW 4 million, a fine of KRW 200, and a fine of KRW 1: a year) imposed by the court below on each

B. The sentence imposed by the second instance court on the Defendant is too unhued and unfair.

Judgment

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor ex officio, the court below sentenced each of the above judgments after examining the defendant separately. The defendant filed an appeal against each of the above judgments, and the prosecutor filed an appeal against the second judgment, and the court decided to concurrently deliberate on the above two appeals cases. The first and second offenses against the defendant are concurrent offenses under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and shall be sentenced to a single sentence within the scope of the term of punishment subject to aggravated concurrent offenses under Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the judgment of the court below should be sentenced to a single sentence.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to the use of fraudulent and perjury in the second judgment is still subject to the judgment of this court.