Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

A. Article 1 of the lower judgment related to 1) misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine on the grounds of appeal is cited as the grounds of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine. The allegation of misunderstanding of the legal doctrine is that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the forgery of private documents, thereby making it possible to make a mistake of facts.

D) On December 31, 2011, 201, the Defendant, the actual manager of the instant company, prepared a report of loss of qualification, such as health insurance, as described in the facts charged, in conformity with the substance of the substance. In particular, the Defendant received the above instructions prior to the network E (hereinafter referred to as “the Deceased”), the former representative director of the instant company, with the interest of the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant did not have any intention to forge the private document and exercise the same.

2) The punishment of the lower court is too heavy.

B. According to the judgment of the court below No. 2, the preparation of the application for termination of the account, such as the application for termination of the account, as recorded in the facts charged by the defendant, was a public gold act conducted in the capacity of joint business proprietor, and was delegated by the deceased’s life, and thus, there was no intent to forge a private document

2) The punishment of the lower court is too heavy.

2. The judgment of the court below in the first and second judgment against the defendant was rendered, and each appeal was filed against the defendant. The court decided to hold these cases together for a trial.

However, the judgment of the court below against the defendant is a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and a single sentence should be imposed pursuant to Article 38 (1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.

However, there are such reasons for ex officio reversal.

Even if the defendant's assertion such as mistake of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles is still subject to a trial of this court.

3...