The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than four months and a fine not exceeding five million won.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The misapprehension of the legal principle that the Defendant signed F in the column for signature signature of the driver of the police station as a result of the crackdown on drinking driving under the PDA by the police officer's portable information terminal (PDA) does not forge the private signature.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the event that a police officer’s personal information terminal (PDA)’s signature in the column for signature signature of another person is forged, the crime of forging private signature under Article 239(1) of the Criminal Act is established.

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Do9131 Decided September 29, 2011). The lower court determined that the Defendant signed the F in the column for signature signature of the driver at the time when the police officer’s portable information terminal (PDA) was in charge of the crackdown on drinking driving. The lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of forging private signature, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

B. In full view of all the sentencing conditions indicated in the records and arguments of the case of unfair sentencing, and the Defendant’s depth divided and voluntarily surrenders to the fabrication of private documents, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable, and thus, the Defendant’s above assertion has merit.

3. Since the appeal by the defendant is well-grounded, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the following is ruled again after pleading.

Criminal facts

The summary of the evidence and the criminal facts of the defendant recognized by this court and the summary of the evidence are the same as the corresponding columns of the judgment of the court below, and thus, they shall be quoted by Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Application of Statutes

1. Article 148-2 (1) 1 and Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, Article 152 subparagraph 1 of the Road Traffic Act, Article 43 of the Road Traffic Act, Article 239 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 239 (2) and (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 231 of the Criminal Act, Articles 234 and 231 of the Criminal Act concerning the crime;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

1. Selection of penalty;