The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

1. The reasoning for the appeal (one and half years of imprisonment) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant.

Recognizing that the court below convicted all of the charges of forging private documents and the uttering of a falsified investigation document, it omitted the applicable laws and the choice of punishment, commercial concurrence, and aggravated concurrent crimes in the application of the statutes, which have affected the conclusion of the judgment, and therefore, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any more in this respect.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the judgment below is reversed and it is again decided as follows.

Criminal facts

The summary of the facts charged and the summary of the evidence recognized by the court is identical to the facts stated in the corresponding column of the judgment below, and thus, the summary of the evidence is cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Article 347 (1) (each fraud) of the Criminal Act in relation to the facts constituting an offense, Article 231 of the Criminal Act (the occupation of each private document) and Articles 234 and 231 of the Criminal Act (the occupation of uttering of each falsified Investigation Document);

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Competition;

1. Selection of each sentence of imprisonment;

1. In light of the favorable circumstances, such as the first sentence of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act to aggravated concurrent crimes, the confessions and reflects the crime for sentencing, the fact that there is no record of punishment other than once a fine for dual punishment, the fact that most victims have recovered from damage, and the Defendant does not want to punish the Defendant, and the fact that the Defendant has lost real estate owned in the process of the instant case by auction, it is significant to the amount of damage by deceiving 500 million won or more from victims, and the Defendant is not sufficient to commit the crime by deceiving the money by deceiving the money by means of the use of forged a lease contract.