2. One-string, the Defendant confessions and reflects the facts constituting an offense, the security company at which the Defendant was working participated in the public tender through the use of forgery of the instant private document, but it is difficult to deem that substantial damage has occurred as the use of forgery of the private document was discovered during the commission of the crime, and the primary offender who has no criminal history of punishment is considered as favorable to the Defendant.

On the other hand, each of the crimes of this case was committed by forging and submitting a certificate of performance and a tax invoice 48 tax invoices for the purpose of proving false performance in order to be selected as a patient food assistance service provider under the supervision of the National Armed Forces Finance Management Office, and thus, the scale of the crime is not small. Through this, the crime is not likely to infringe the public nature and fairness of the public tender procedure or undermine the legitimate interests of other bidders, and thus, it is also necessary to punish the defendant with strict consideration of the unfavorable circumstances, such as the fact that the crime is not good.

The lower court, including the aforementioned circumstances, determined a punishment by fully taking account of all the circumstances regarding the sentencing of the Defendant and deeming that it is within a reasonable scope, and thus, is not deemed unfair because the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

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