The respective types of punishment (the first instance court: the imprisonment of 2 years and 6 months, and the second instance: the imprisonment of 3 years and 6 months) of the judgment of the court below are too unreasonable.

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

The trial decided to consolidate each appeal case against the judgment below.

However, since each crime of the judgment below against the defendant is one of the concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, if concurrent crimes are judged at the same time, one of these crimes must be sentenced in accordance with Article 38 of the Criminal Act.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.

Thus, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, and it is again decided as follows after oral argument.

[Discied Judgment] The criminal facts recognized by the court and the summary of the evidence are all the same as the facts stated in the corresponding column of the judgment below. Thus, they are cited as it is in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, Articles 352, 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act concerning the choice of punishment, Articles 234, 231, and 30 of the Criminal Act, Articles 347(1) of the Criminal Act, Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment, Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 32(1)1 and 25(3)3 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Lawsuits, etc. of the Dismissal of Application for Compensation [This is not clear in the scope of Defendant’s liability for compensation] the total amount of damages in this case’s sentencing reaches KRW 766,500,000, the damages most have not been recovered, and the Defendant’s method of aiding and abetting private documents over several occasions.