Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for two months and the remainder for five crimes as stated in the judgment of the second instance.

A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles and by misapprehending the legal principles, or by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, on the ground that the Defendant, with the consent of P, recorded P’s personal information in the column of joint and several sureties for the loan application.

B. The punishment of unfair sentencing (the first instance court: the imprisonment of June and the second instance court: the imprisonment of 4 months on the crimes of 5th decision; the imprisonment of 10 months on the remaining crimes; the imprisonment of 10 months on the third instance court; and the imprisonment of 10 months and the fourth instance court: the imprisonment of 1 year) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, each court rendered a separate examination of the defendant and rendered a judgment of conviction, and the court decided to hold a joint hearing of each appeal case against each of the defendant's appeals.

However, since each of the remaining crimes of the judgment below except for the crimes of Article 5 of the judgment below in the second instance is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, one of the concurrent crimes under Article 38 (1) 2 of the Criminal Act shall be sentenced within the scope of the term of punishment aggravated.

In this respect, all parts of the judgment of the court below Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 2, except for the crimes of No. 5 in the judgment of the court below

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is subject to the judgment of this court, despite the above reasons for reversal of authority.

B. Of the judgment of the court of the second instance, the judgment of the court of the second instance on the assertion of mistake as to the forgery of private documents under the name of P and the uttering of falsified Documents is duly adopted and investigated by evidence as follows, namely, that P does not have consented to the entry of his/her personal information in the column of joint and several sureties for the loan application, and the defendant's objection in the court of the court