A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

A. The Defendant filed each appeal on the grounds that the lower court found the Defendant guilty, on the grounds that the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the facts charged for the forgery of each private document, and the exercise of the above investigation document, and the sentencing

B. In this regard, with respect to the charge of the forgery of each private document and the uttering of the above investigation document, the prosecutor forged and held a notice of the results of the drinking driving control (the criminal facts of the judgment below No. 7-A. of the court below) from among the charges charged by the prosecutor at the trial, the name of the crime is “facing a private document”, “facing a private document, etc.”, “facing a private electronic document, etc.”, and “facing a private document, etc.”, and the applicable legal provision “Articles 231 and 234 of the Criminal Act” as “Articles 232-2 and 234 of the Criminal Act”, and “the defendant, without authority, has forged and exercised one copy of the notice of the results of the drinking driving control of the said R’s private document, which is a private document pertaining to the proof of facts without authority.”

“In order to mislead the management of affairs as above, the Defendant forged and exercised a notification file, which is a special media record, such as another person’s electronic records pertaining to proof of fact without authority, such as a special media record of drinking driving control.

"Application for Amendments to Bill of Indictment has been filed," and this Court has been permitted to change the subject of the adjudication.

In addition, since the revised facts charged and the remaining facts charged are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, one punishment should be sentenced within the scope of punishment aggravated for concurrent crimes.

(c)

In this respect, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.

2. The judgment of the court below is reversed ex officio, and there is a ground for reversal as seen above. The judgment of the court below on each of the grounds for appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor is omitted (Provided, That with respect to the argument of misunderstanding the facts or misapprehension of legal principles and the changed facts charged, the judgment below is examined) and Article 364