A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty on the ground that the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment, even though it did not take part in each of the crimes stated in the first instance judgment against the above G while introducing the G that the Defendant knew of the need for money to run a restaurant by forging documents by forging C and D, etc. at all.

B. In light of the various sentencing conditions in the instant case of unfair sentencing, the lower court’s punishment on the Defendant (the first instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months, and the second instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for 5 months) is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. According to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant for concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37, prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant, the record reveals that the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for fraud, etc. at the District Court of Jung-gu on September 21, 2012, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on September 29, 2012. In such a case, the crime for which judgment imposing imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment became final and the crime for which judgment became final and conclusive prior to the final judgment becomes final and conclusive are concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37(1) of the Criminal Act, and the punishment is set after examining whether to reduce or exempt punishment in consideration of equity and the case for which judgment is concurrently rendered pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the first instance

B. The former concurrent crimes of Article 37 also filed an appeal against each of the judgment below, and the court of the first instance decided to hold concurrent hearings of each of the above appeal cases. The crime of each of the judgment below against the defendant is one of the concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and a single punishment should be imposed 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, each of the judgment below against the defendant cannot be maintained any more.

However, as above.