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

Around April 27, 2012 and around June 25, 2012, respectively.

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

Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal for ex officio determination, it is examined ex officio as to the point of each securities section and the point of the exercise of forged securities (with respect to the Promissory Notes K and M-related) around April 27, 2012 and June 25, 2012.

The summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: (a) the Defendant, at the time of the original adjudication around April 27, 2012 and around June 25, 2012, as indicated in the table of crime (1) Nos. 2 and 4, stated “F” in the column of the last endorser of each of the above promissory notes, i.e., the Defendant forged H (F), affixed H’s seal, made an endorsement as to the rights and obligations of the promissory notes, which are valuable instruments, by means of forging H (F), and at the same time, made a discount on the bill to C; and (b) exercised the said promissory notes as if they were a document duly formed as described in the table of crime Nos. 2 and 4 in the judgment of the court below.

The crime of forging securities under Article 214(2) of the Criminal Act is established by forging the description on the rights and obligations of securities. According to the records of this case, each of the above promissory notes shall be deemed to have forged an endorsement in the name of F (H), which is a statement on the rights and obligations of an endorser (as stated in Articles 15, 17 of the Investigation Record), and it shall not be deemed to have forged an endorsement in the name of F (H), which is a statement on the rights and obligations of an endorser. There is no evidence to reinforce this in addition to

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which convicted each of the above promissory notes as guilty is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and since the facts charged and the remaining facts charged against the defendant are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any more.

3. The decision of the court below is examined as above.