2. The judgment of the court below recognized the crime of this case and is against depth, and the victim D brought a lawsuit seeking the return of deposit against I on the basis of the letter of performance of the deposit forged by the defendant. The above victim had been paid KRW 25 million in the process of the above lawsuit. Furthermore, there are favorable circumstances such as the defendant's and defense counsel's assertion that the above victim would have agreed with the above victim in the trial process of the court below. Further, there are some circumstances such as the defendant's and defense counsel in relation to each of the crimes of this case, and there are crimes that could have been tried before the court below's judgment and at the same time. However, the defendant's damage amount due to each of the crimes of this case is very large, and the damage amount due to the embezzlement of this case was not recovered from the crime of this case. After the sentence of the court below, the crime of this case was committed even though the defendant had been tried for the crime of this case, and there were no special circumstances or changes in the circumstances that the defendant had committed the crime of this case, the character and conduct and circumstances of this case, etc.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

However, among the facts constituting the forgery of private documents of the judgment of the court below, the name of F.C.