A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for four months.

However, the period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

2. Reviewing the reasoning for the Defendant’s appeal ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for the appeal by authority, the fact that the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment on December 22, 2016 by the Seoul Central District Court on September 7, 2017 and became final and conclusive on September 7, 2017 due to the charge of forging private documents.

Since each of the crimes in the judgment of the court below, which became final and conclusive, is in a concurrent relationship with the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.

3. As seen above, the judgment of the court below is reversed without examining the defendant's improper assertion of sentencing, and the judgment below is reversed and it is again decided as follows.

Criminal facts

The summary of the judgment of the court below on December 22, 2016 and the judgment on September 7, 2017 became final and conclusive on September 7, 2017, upon being sentenced to the charge of forging private documents at the Seoul Central District Court on December 22, 2016.

“1. A previous conviction in the judgment of the court below” is the same as the judgment of the court below, except for addition of “1. Each judgment” to the summary of the evidence.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant provisions of Article 347(1) and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of fraud), Article 231 of the Criminal Act (the point of Article 231 of the Criminal Act), Articles 234 and 231 of the Criminal Act (the point of uttering of the said investigation document) and the choice of imprisonment for each of the crimes;

1. After Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 39 (1) of the same Act:

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution does not focus on unfavorable circumstances and the degree of participation in the crime, such as the fact that the amount obtained by deception is larger than the amount of the reason for sentencing, the fact that the damage has not been recovered, the fact that the defendant recognized the mistake and reflects it, the fact that the profits acquired by the defendant seems to be almost nonexistent, the victim does not want the punishment for the defendant by agreement with the victim, and the same is the same as the previous conviction