A. In light of the legal principles, the Defendant issued a summary order for the crime of altering private documents and copying private documents that were committed over the period from 2011 to 2012 and confirmed in 2014 (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014 High Court Decision 9708). As such, the Defendant’s exercise of private documents and copying private documents among the facts charged in the instant case that became final and conclusive and the previous charges committed prior thereto is a single-class crime. As such, the effect of res judicata of the above summary order on the alteration of private documents and the exercise of private documents in the instant indictment, the Defendant’s judgment of acquittal should be rendered on the charge of exercising private documents alteration and copying private documents among the facts charged in the instant case.

Meanwhile, in addition to the facts charged in the instant case, E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”), a representative director, entered into a contract with the Defense Business Administration and on June 8, 201, with respect to the term “Matern” (military mother). At that time, the prosecutor was not prosecuted for fraud, but charged only for the crime of forging a private document or forging a falsified document.

However, since the effect of an indictment is limited to fraud committed around 2011, which is recognized as identical to that of the alteration and alteration of a private document, the effect of the indictment is limited to fraud committed around 2011 without prosecution. Furthermore, fraud among the facts charged in this case is based on a single criminal intent, and thus, a single crime is related to a single crime.

Therefore, since the res judicata effect of the above summary order is limited to the fraud, which is the facts charged in the instant case, the judgment of acquittal should be rendered as to the fraud among the facts charged in the instant case.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (a 3 years of suspended execution in 1 year and 6 months of imprisonment, and a community service order of 200 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Regarding the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine.