The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

An application filed by an applicant for compensation shall be dismissed.

1. The sentence of the court below (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. When two or more persons exist in an ex officio determination in writing, one document is established for each nominal owner, and when two or more persons are forged, several crimes of forging documents are established according to the number of persons under their joint signature, and the act of forging a document under their joint signature constitutes a single act of natural observation or social norms. As such, several crimes of forging documents constitutes a commercial concurrent act as provided in Article 40 of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Do564, Jul. 21, 1987); where a forged document is delivered to, and exercises, two or more persons under their joint signature, the crime of uttering of a forged document is established as many as the number of documents; and the crime of uttering of a forged document constitutes a commercial concurrent act.

(See Supreme Court Decision 4289Ma188 Decided September 7, 1956, etc.). Of the crimes of fabrication of private documents listed in the holding of the court below [2014Da1250], each of the crimes of fabrication of private documents listed in paragraphs (1), (b), (c), and (1) of Article 1-2 of the crime of fabrication of documents constitutes several crimes of fabrication of documents in which the name of H stock company and I are forged in one of the crimes of fabrication of documents in the judgment of the court below constitutes a commercial concurrent crimes.

[2] Paragraph 2-A of the criminal facts of the case [2014 Highest 1250] as stated in the judgment of the court below is an ordinary concurrent crime as follows: (a) Paragraph (b) is a non-Esp Capital Co., Ltd. on March 11, 2014; (c) Paragraph (2) is a single-feasible Co., Ltd. on March 11, 2014; and [201 Highest 2491] criminal facts of the case is an act of providing forged or altered documents to the HK Savings Bank on March 14, 2014, respectively.

Nevertheless, the court below erred in handling all parts of the judgment as substantive concurrent crimes, and such illegality affected the judgment. In this regard, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any more.

3. Accordingly, the court below's decision is erroneous.