A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

A. In fact, the Defendant did not intend to distribute the instant securities, but merely gave F merely for the purpose of verifying the authenticity of the instant securities, and did not demand or receive any consideration therefor. Thus, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged, which erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one hundred months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the reasoning for an ex officio appeal prior to the judgment on the grounds for an ex officio appeal, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for one year at the Seoul Southern District Court on October 14, 2015 (Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2810 decided January 16, 2016), and the judgment became final and conclusive on January 16, 2016.

Thus, the defendant's crime of this case committed before the above judgment became final and conclusive and the crime of conspiracy of securities is in the relation of concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Code.

However, the court below's decision is erroneous in omitting the application of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, but Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act (In this regard, the defendant asserts to the effect that since the crime of causing forgery, which became final and conclusive, and the crime of this case are a single crime, a judgment of acquittal should be rendered on the facts charged of this case.

However, this part of the defendant's argument cannot be viewed as legitimate grounds for appeal, which is newly raised after the deadline for submitting the Reasons for Appeal.

The defendant's assertion can be seen as a ground for reversal ex officio.

Even if the crime of this case and each of the forged securities that became final and conclusive, such crime cannot be deemed a single comprehensive crime due to the difference between the other party to the exercise of the right and the other party. Moreover, each of the forged securities that was committed in the above final and conclusive judgment does not constitute a single crime.