Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

2. In full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant did not have any history of punishment for the same kind of crime; (b) the name of the private document that the Defendant altered does not seem to have been actually damaged due to the altered private document; and (c) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment; (d) motive, means and consequence of the crime; and (e) the sentencing conditions specified in the records and arguments, including the circumstances after the crime, are somewhat unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the defendant's appeal is with merit.

Criminal facts

The summary of the facts charged and the summary of the evidence recognized by the court are as stated in each corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, and thus, they are quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Article 231 of the Criminal Act ( point of modification of each private document) and Articles 234 and 231 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act for each ordinary competition ( mutually among the crimes of altering each private document and between the crimes of uttering of each private document);

1. Selection of each alternative fine for punishment;

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

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Prior to the reasons for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the sentencing conditions as set forth in the above order shall be determined by comprehensively taking account of the following factors.