The part on the defendant of the first judgment and the second judgment shall be reversed respectively.

The defendant shall be sentenced to six months of imprisonment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant of mistake of facts does not establish perjury because he/she testified as he/she experienced, but did not testify against his/her memory, and did not establish perjury. Since Y delegated by R with all matters related to money was believed to be "notarial and exercised power of attorney," the Defendant does not constitute a crime of forging a private document or uttering a private document.

B. Even if an unreasonable sentencing is acknowledged, the sentence against the defendant (the first judgment of the court below: 6 months of imprisonment with prison labor; 2 years of suspended sentence; 3 million won of fine) is too unreasonable in light of the circumstances leading to the defendant's instant crime, etc.

2. Determination:

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant ex officio, the first and second court sentenced the defendant to the punishment for each of the above judgments after examining the defendant separately, and the defendant filed an appeal against each of the above judgments. The court below decided to hold concurrent hearings. Each of the crimes of the court below against the defendant in the first and second concurrent relation to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and should be sentenced to a single sentence within the scope of the term of punishment subject to aggravated concurrent crimes under Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below against the defendant was all reversed.

B. The Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, even though there was a ground for ex officio reversal of facts on the judgment of mistake of facts.

First of all, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below regarding the perjury, namely, the defendant's two names, namely, the defendant, at the prosecutor's office, detained Z andO as investors in the company E, and the name of K, AA, andO, which the defendant took place in the Z.