The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

The defendant shall observe the protection for a period of one year.

1. The sentence imposed by the court below (two years of the suspended sentence of six months) is too unreasonable in light of the gist of the grounds for appeal.

2. Ex officio determination

A. The Defendant’s defense counsel at issue of the submission of the grounds for appeal and ex officio determination only presented the grounds for appeal on May 29, 201 in the statement of reasons for appeal, which was withdrawn on May 29, 2017, for the sole reason of appeal, and did not assert the grounds for appeal related to mistake of facts or legal evaluation of the facts.

On the other hand, the court of appeals may only refer to cases where the grounds for ex officio examination are included in the petition of appeal or a statement of reasons for appeal submitted within the prescribed period unless it is stated in the petition of appeal. However, with respect to the grounds for ex officio examination, it must be judged without any need to refer to whether the grounds for ex officio examination have been submitted, or whether it has been included in the statement of reasons for appeal (proviso of Article 361-4 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act). Here, the grounds for ex officio examination include not only errors in the application of statutes or statutory interpretation, but also obvious errors in the application of statutes or statutory interpretation, and unfair sentencing. (See Supreme Court Order 2005Mo564, May 16, 2003, Supreme Court Order 2002Mo338, May 16, 2003, etc.). However, the judgment of the court below in this case contains any error of law by mistake or misapprehension of the legal principles as seen below.

B. Of the facts charged in the instant case, ex officio misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles among the judgment of the court below on the summary of the forgery of the private signature and the exercise of the signature of the above investigation should be examined. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the following facts charged by the court below are related to the forgery of the private signature

Defendant on September 10, 2016, Jincheon-gun, Jincheon-gun, Jincheon-do around 10:05.