The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The punishment sentenced by the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

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.

In this case, the crime of forging a private document by forging a private document from the forgery agreement in the name of E, L, or M and the crime of uttering of a private document on the basis of the submission of the above lease agreement shall be deemed to have been forged and used by two or more persons, and the crime of forging a private document 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 did not apply Article 40 of the Criminal Act to the crime of forging a private document and the crime of uttering of a private document on the basis of the above lease agreement, on the ground that the remainder of the crime is excessive or substantial concurrent relationship. Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension

In addition, in the case of delivering and exercising forged documents en bloc, the crime of uttering of forged documents is established as many as the number of documents. The above crimes of uttering of forged documents constitute commercial concurrent crimes (see Supreme Court Decision 4289Do188, Sept. 7, 1956).