2. It is recognized that the Defendant’s mistake is against the judgment, and that the crime of this case is in conflict with the above investigation document and the crime of false accusation and the crime of concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Act as stated in the judgment of the court below, the case of concurrent crimes under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act should be considered with the case of concurrent crimes, and that the Defendant appears to have economic difficulty.

However, in consideration of such favorable circumstances, the lower court also determined the punishment by reducing the amount of fine according to the summary order. The act of lending the registered name of construction business requires strict punishment as it is likely to cause serious social problems, such as defective construction works, etc. In addition, comprehensively taking account of the circumstances surrounding the instant crime, circumstances after the instant crime, Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable, and thus, it is not recognized that the Defendant’s assertion is unreasonable, given that it is not reasonable.

3. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is without merit and is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on June 16, 2016, on the following grounds: “The Defendant” under Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure under Article 25(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act: “The Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a crime of false accusation, etc. at the Seoul Eastern District Court on August 16, 2016, and the judgment becomes final and conclusive on August 16, 2016; and “10 months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of forging private documents, etc.” under the same paragraph is clear that it is a clerical error in the above investigation document, and thus, it is thereby erroneous.