2. The judgment of the defendant is against the mistake, and the crime of this case is a concurrent crime under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act with the crime of fraud established on August 23, 2013 and concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. It is recognized that there is a need to consider equity in the case of concurrent crimes under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act. The victim is also responsible for the occurrence of the crime of this case or the expansion of damage caused thereby, and the defendant seems to have paid a considerable portion of the amount acquired through deception of this case to the victim as profits or dividends.

However, in light of the shape of the instant crime, the period of the instant crime, and the amount of damage, etc., the Defendant’s liability for the crime is not easy, and the Defendant committed the instant crime in the period of repeated crime due to the crime of forging public documents nine times (one actual punishment, one suspended sentence, one time of a suspended sentence, and seven fines), and the Defendant committed the instant crime during the period of repeated crime due to the crime of forging public documents, and the Defendant did not recover from damage up to the trial, and did not have been agreed with the victim. In addition, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable, taking into account the following circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive, means and method of the instant crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.