The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (10 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable in light of the gist of the appeal by the defendant and his defense counsel.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.

On October 16, 2017, the lower court determined that the Defendant committed the crime of forging and using one copy of the withdrawal letter from three workers of the instant case, and the crime of forging and using one copy of the written application for the punishment of three workers of the instant case around November 20, 2017, i.e., forging each private document and using one copy of the written application for the punishment of three workers of the instant case, respectively, constituted one crime.

However, when there are two or more persons in the name of preparation in writing, one document is established for each nominal owner, and when there are two or more persons in joint signature, several crimes of forging a document are established according to the number of persons in the name of preparation, and the act of forging a document under joint signature is a single act in view of natural observation or social norms.

As such, several crimes of forgerys of the above documents constitute an ordinary concurrent crimes stipulated under Article 40 of the Criminal Act (see Supreme Court Decision 87Do564, Jul. 21, 1987, etc.). In addition, where several forged documents are exercised en bloc, several crimes of forgerys constitute an ordinary concurrent crimes.

Thus, the defendant's act of forging a private document on October 16, 2017 and the act of forging a private document on November 20, 2017 constituted several crimes by each person under each name, and each crime is in a mutually competitive relationship, and the act of using each document also constitutes a mutually concurrent crime for the crime of copying a private document under several above investigation.

Nevertheless, the lower court, which did not apply Article 40 of the Criminal Act on the commercial concurrent crimes between the crimes of forging private documents and the crimes of gambling in the above investigation documents, erred by violating the statutes.

However, even if the court below erred in assessing the number of crimes as above, it did not have any difference in the scope of punishment, and such error of the court below affected the conclusion of the judgment.

§ 23.