The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (one year and eight months of imprisonment with prison labor for each of the crimes listed in the lower judgment, excluding the above crimes, with the exception of four months, and one year and eight months of imprisonment with prison labor for each of the crimes listed in the lower judgment, among the crimes listed in the 2018 Highest 92 Case, and each of the crimes committed on November 27, 2013) is too unreasonable.

2. The determination of sentencing is based on statutory penalty, and the discretionary determination is made within a reasonable and reasonable scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of sentencing of the first instance that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of direct jurisdiction taken by our criminal litigation law and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the sentencing of sentencing of the first instance was exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively taking into account the factors and guidelines for sentencing specified in the first instance sentencing trial process.

In light of the records newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing hearing, it is reasonable to file an unfair judgment of the first instance court, only in cases where it is deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing of the first instance court as it is for the court to judge the sentencing of the first instance court.

In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the sentencing of the first instance judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The circumstances alleged by the Defendant as an element favorable to the sentencing in the trial of the lower court have already been presented during the oral proceedings of the lower court, and there is no change of circumstances favorable to the sentencing criteria after the sentence of the lower court was rendered.

In the case of each of the crimes in this case, it appears that the defendant recognized the crimes in this case and against himself, among the 2018 Highest 92 cases, the crime of illegally committing official documents among the 2018 Highest 92 cases, the crime of forging each of the private documents as of November 27, 2013, and the crime of forging the above investigation documents, the equity in the case of judgment shall be taken into account at the same time as the crime of fraud finalized on September 19, 2014.