The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of seven million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since a written confirmation of the closure of an investigation (hereinafter “written confirmation of the closure of investigation of this case”) written in the facts charged was prepared by a public office or a public official in connection with his/her duties, the facts charged are sufficiently proven that the Defendant forged and exercised the written confirmation of the closure of investigation of this case.

Nevertheless, the court below rendered a not guilty verdict on this part of the facts charged. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one million won of a fine) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. An ex officio determination prosecutor shall maintain the facts charged as to the forgery of public documents, the use of forged public documents, and the use of forged public documents as the primary facts charged, and shall read the name of the offense as “the fabrication of private documents, the use of falsified documents,” and the applicable provisions of Acts as “Articles 231 and 234 of the Criminal Act,” and filed an application for permission for modification of an indictment which adds them to the same contents as stated in paragraph (1) of the facts constituting a crime in the judgment below, and the subject of the judgment was changed by the

However, as seen below, this court acquitted the charge of forging public documents, forging private documents, which are the primary facts charged, and convicted the charge of uttering of forged public documents, which are the ancillary facts charged, and thus, the acquittal portion of the judgment below which is only the primary facts charged, cannot be maintained further.

In addition, the crime of fraud, which the court below found guilty, should be sentenced to a single sentence in relation to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act with the conjunctive facts charged which the court below found guilty. Thus, the guilty part of the court below

However, such an ex officio reversal.