A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than three years and six months.

A. Regarding the misunderstanding of facts, the Defendant is “AD-owned X companies below the complainant” in relation to the case of “2012 Highest 5119”.

(2) After accepting a joint signature document, there was no forgery of the minutes of the board of directors in order to obtain a loan from a bank. The lower court’s sentencing (four years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable. The lower court’s judgment on the grounds of appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by its authority is unreasonable. In the event of forgery of a document jointly signed by two or more persons, several crimes of forging documents are established according to the number of persons under whose name the document was prepared. However, the act of forging a joint signature document is deemed one act by natural observation or social norms, and thus, constitutes a mutually concurrent crime (see Supreme Court Decision 87Do564, Jul. 21, 1987). According to the records, the lower court’s judgment is an act of forgery of a document jointly signed by the board of directors or multiple concurrent crimes of forgery of a document under the name of a person under whose name the document was prepared, or an act of forgery of a temporarily forged document under the name of a person under whose name the document was signed.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the number of crimes, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of the court, even though there are such reasons for the above ex officio reversal, and this will be examined below.

3. The lower court and the first instance court on the assertion of mistake of facts.