The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A Imprisonment with prison labor for eight months and for six months, respectively.
except that this shall not apply.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that the sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants (Defendant A: Imprisonment for 8 months, Defendant B: imprisonment for 8 months, suspended execution for 2 years, and community service for 120 hours) is too unreasonable.
2. Although Defendant A, as an internal director of the J Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “J”), performed an act for the benefit of the J, Defendant A in-house director, Defendant A, in order to arbitrarily transfer the name of the owner of the instant building owned by the J to a third party and receive the payment, forged a document under the name of the joint representative director of the J, who is a joint representative director of the J, and forged a document with the qualification of the J’s representative or agent, and thereby, constitutes an offense.
The responsibility of Defendant A is not weak in that it had the same criminal record and caused complex legal disputes surrounding the name of the owner due to the instant crime.
However, even though Defendant A denied a crime in the court below, it is contrary to the recognition of the crime in the court below.
The name of the owner of the instant case was changed to J via Mai, Co., Ltd., Ltd., and at the time of the instant crime, the name change contract entered into between Mai-nam and J was cancelled for the reason that it was an act of harming the owner’s name change contract entered into between Mai-nam and J, and thus, the J did not have any significant risk of actual damage due to the instant crime.
The J agreed with N among the co-representatives of the J, and agreed in the first instance court and the other co-representatives.
A had been detained for more than five months in the instant case and had an opportunity to reflect.
In full view of the various circumstances, including these circumstances, including Defendant A’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the commission of the crime, and the circumstances after the commission of the crime, the lower court’s punishment is somewhat unreasonable.
3. Prior to the judgment on Defendant B’s grounds for appeal.