Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Reasons

1. The Defendant’s crime of this case regarding the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing is deemed to be a planned crime in order to forge the Defendant’s resident registration certificate and purchase a high-priced vehicle under the name of another person by using it, and then sell it, which is not good for the Defendant to commit a large amount of profit. It appears that forgery is a large amount of loan funds granted by the Defendant, etc., but it is recognized that the Defendant recognized his criminal act and accomplice relation from the beginning and divided the mistake. The forgery of the resident registration certificate of this case and other seal mobilized was prepared by E, and specific methods of crime, such as the conclusion of the vehicle lease contract, appears to have been executed by the Defendant as ordered by E, and there is no record of criminal punishment exceeding a fine, and taking into account all the sentencing conditions indicated in the records and arguments of this case, including the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, health, home environment, and the circumstances before and after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment (one year imprisonment and confiscation) is somewhat inappropriate.