A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and ten months.

The sentence of the court below (one year and ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

In the first instance of the trial, the prosecutor made an application for changes in the indictment with respect to the provisions of Articles 7 through 12 of the facts charged in the instant case, and this court approved the application and changed the subject of the judgment.

However, the part to be modified as above and the remaining facts charged in the court below found guilty should be sentenced to a single punishment in relation to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any more.

When two or more persons exist in a document, one document is established for each nominal owner. Thus, when two or more persons have forged a document jointly signed, several crimes of forging documents are established according to the number of persons in charge of preparing the document. Such forgery is one act of natural observation or social norms. As such, the crime of forging documents constitutes a commercial concurrent crime provided for in Article 40 of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Do564, Jul. 21, 1987); and two or more persons are also exercising forged documents under their joint signature as a single act, and therefore, such act constitutes a commercial concurrent crime of uttering of multiple documents under their joint signature.

The facts charged of this case No. 4-B

paragraphs 6-b and 6-2

The crime of uttering of a falsified investigation document in the name of P, D, and the crime of uttering of a falsified investigation document in the name of P, D, and the crime of uttering of a falsified investigation document in the name of R is the crime of uttering of a falsified investigation document in the name of P, D, and the crime of uttering of a falsified investigation document in the form of joint signature of at least two persons.

However, the lower court deemed that the remainder of the above facts were in a substantive concurrent relationship, and thus did not apply the provisions of Article 40 of the Criminal Act on the commercial concurrence.