A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

However, for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

2. The lower court’s sentencing against the Defendant is somewhat inappropriate in view of the fact that the Defendant paid the amount of damage to the victim H to restore the entire damage and there are changes in circumstances agreed with the victim.

The defendant's above assertion of unfair sentencing is justified.

3. Since the appeal by the defendant is well-grounded, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act and it is again decided as follows.

Criminal facts

The summary of the judgment of the court below is identical to each corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, and thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the

Application of Statutes

1. Article 225 of the Criminal Act and Articles 225, 30 of the Criminal Act, Articles 229, 225, and 30 of the Criminal Act, Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act, Articles 352, 347(1), and 30 of the Criminal Act, Articles 231 and 30 of the Criminal Act, Articles 234, 231, and 30 of the Criminal Act, Articles 231, 234, 231, and 30 of the Criminal Act, Articles 49(4)1, and 6(3)1 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, the selection of punishment for a crime (the use of a falsified investigative document, the selection of imprisonment), Articles 49(3)1, and 6(3)1 of the same Act;

1. Mitigation of attempted crimes under Articles 25(2) and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (with respect to attempted crimes by fraud)

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (aggravated Punishment for Forgery of Public Document, which is the most severe offense) among concurrent crimes;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Social service order under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 48 (1) 1 and 2 of the Criminal Act to be confiscated;