The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months.

1. The sentence imposed by the lower court (eight months of imprisonment) on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. Determination of unfair argument about sentencing

(a) Where the crime of forgery or alteration of a document is accompanied by the crime of forgery or alteration as a result of committing a fraudulent crime committed by the scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines, it shall not be treated as a majority crime, and only be treated as a sentencing factor

[Determination of Type 1 (less than KRW 100,00) [Special Aggravationd Persons] In a case where the Act on the Number of Crimes is extremely poor or a case where the fraud of a lawsuit was committed by deceiving the court in the trial proceedings, the court shall be punished by imprisonment for one year to two years (the scope of recommended punishment) (the area of aggravated punishment)

B. The instant crime was committed by the Defendant, as if the festival was held in both mountain areas, by deceiving the victim and deceiving the victim for participation in the event, and during that process, by means of actively deceiving the victim, and by altering documents in the name of the president of the board of directors of the facilities management corporation in Gyeyang-si, the crime is heavier in light of the content and method of the crime, background, and scale of damage, etc.

Furthermore, it is inevitable to punish the injured party for a considerable period of time because the injured party is still punished for the defendant due to no agreement with the injured party.

However, in consideration of the fact that the defendant's mistake is recognized and is against the defendant, that the defendant deposited five million won for the victim when the defendant was in the first instance, that the defendant was in violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act in 1987, that the defendant was not subject to criminal punishment for the crime of transporting water in 1998, that there was no other criminal conviction for the defendant, and that there was no other criminal punishment for the defendant in addition to the punishment of each fine due to the crime of transporting water in 198, and other various sentencing conditions in the records and arguments such as the defendant's age, sex and environment, circumstances after the crime, etc.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is reasonable.