A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Defendant

misunderstanding of facts (as to the facts charged in 2013dan419, 746), the Defendant lent money to G private villages, the victim C, or the victim H, who flickly had a difficulty in economic situation while living together with G and green age, and did not deceiving the victims of money.

In addition, in order for G to borrow money from the victim H first, it was proposed that G would return the monthly rent of the beauty room as a deposit for the lease on a deposit basis, and the Defendant, under G’s permission, voluntarily prepared a real estate lease agreement in the name of lessor I and lessee, and borrowed money from the victim H. Therefore, there was no intention to forge a private document and display it.

The sentence of unfair sentencing (10 months of imprisonment) by the court below is too unreasonable.

The sentence of the court below by the prosecutor (10 months of imprisonment) is too unhued and unfair.

Judgment

When two or more persons exist in a document for judgment ex officio, one document is established for each nominal owner. As such, when two or more persons have forged a document jointly signed, several crimes of forging documents are established according to the number of persons in whose name the document is prepared. Such forgery is one act of natural observation or social norms. As such, several crimes of forging documents constitutes a commercial concurrent crime as stipulated under Article 40 of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Do564, Jul. 21, 1987); and two or more persons engage in the act of exercising a forged document jointly signed as a single act, and therefore, such act constitutes a commercial concurrent crime of uttering of the said document.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the crime of uttering of a falsified private document by the Defendant’s use of forged I or G lease agreement to H is one of the crimes of uttering of a falsified private document under Article 40 of the Criminal Act as a collective use of a document jointly signed by at least two persons.

However, the lower court erred by misapprehending this.