A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

An application for compensation order by an applicant for compensation.

A. misunderstanding of facts (as to the forgery and uttering of private document in the judgment of the court below of the second instance), the defendant prepared an application for bank transaction and a new application for cellular phone with I's antivoluntary request and did not have prepared the above documents at will only by opening the passbook and cellular phone.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (the first instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for April and the second instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for April) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant ex officio, the appeal case against the judgment below was consolidated. Each of the crimes in the judgment of the court below against the defendant is a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and should be sentenced to a single sentence within the scope of the term of punishment increased by concurrent crimes in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the judgment of the court below cannot be exempted from all reversal.

However, the defendant's assertion of mistake is still subject to the judgment of this court.

subsection (1) of this section shall be taken into consideration.

B. In the police and the trial court, I consistently stated that “The fact that there was no consent from the opening of our bank passbook and handphone, and that there was no knowledge of the fact of the issuance, or that there was no knowledge of the fact of the issuance, after being informed of the telephone station.” In light of the fact that the telephone device opened by the mobile phone new application in the name of I was the Defendant’s heavy mobile phone call, or the details of the deposit and withdrawal of the passbook (bank account) opened by the I bank transaction application in the name of I was a transaction unrelated to I, I has credibility, and according to the evidence duly adopted by the court below and the trial court, including the I’s statement, and the evidence duly admitted and examined, this part of the facts charged can be sufficiently recognized.