The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the above punishment shall be imposed for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The Defendant, with permission from N, has affixed the seal of E, etc. with the mother of E, F, G (hereinafter referred to as “E, etc.”) or E, etc. affixed the seal of E, etc. on the assignment contract entered in the original judgment, and there is no fact that he/she forged or uses the assignment contract in the name of E

Since the Defendant filed a lawsuit to claim acquisition money in order to return to the inheritor that H infringed upon another inheritor’s share of inheritance, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant had a criminal intent to acquire the amount equivalent to E, etc.’s share of inheritance.

We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant.

When there are two or more persons in charge of preparing documents, one document for each nominal owner is established, and when a document jointly signed by two or more persons is forged, several crimes of forging documents are established according to the number of persons in charge of preparing the document, and the act of forging the document jointly signed by them is one act according to natural observation or social norms. Thus, the crime of forging several documents constitutes a commercial concurrent crime as stipulated in Article 40 of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Do564, Jul. 21, 1987); furthermore, the act of exercising a forged document jointly signed by two or more persons constitutes a single act, and thus, the act of using the forged document constitutes a single act, and thus, the act of uttering several documents constitutes a commercial concurrent crime as defined in Article 40 of the Criminal Act.

The crime of forging private documents by forging a private document under the name of E, etc. among the facts charged in the instant case and the crime of uttering of a private document by submitting the said contract for assignment of claims shall be deemed to have been committed by forging and using a document jointly signed by not less than two persons, and the crime of forging private documents and the crime of uttering thereof shall be deemed to have a commercial concurrent relationship as stipulated in Article 40 of the Criminal Act. However, the court below held that the remainder of the facts charged shall be deemed to have the relation of one crime or substantive concurrent crimes.