The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for seven months.

With respect to the forgery of a private document and the use of a falsified document among the facts charged in the first instance trial of the defendant, the statement prepared and submitted by the defendant in the course of investigation by an investigative agency other than a prosecutor cannot be viewed differently from the suspect interrogation protocol prepared by the relevant investigative agency, and the statement in the name B (hereinafter “the statement in this case”) forged by the defendant is submitted to an investigative agency. Thus, it is difficult to evaluate the defendant as a document subject to trust of the general public. Since the statement in this case was prepared in relation to the facts charged in criminal law, it is difficult to regard it as a private document prepared for an individual’s rights and duties or proof of facts, and punishing the defendant for the act of preparing and submitting the written statement in this case for the purpose of hiding his own criminal act does not coincide with the criminal law system and regulations that do not punish the act of destroying himself or destroying evidence concerning his criminal case, the judgment below which found the defendant guilty of the forgery of a private document and the use of a falsified document in this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

The punishment sentenced by the court below (4 months of imprisonment with prison labor in the first and second instances) is too unreasonable.

On the other hand, the defendant appealed from the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance on the other hand, and the court of second instance decided to consolidate the above two appeals cases, and each of the offenses in the judgment of the court of second instance against the defendant are concurrent offenses under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and must be sentenced to a single sentence in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the judgment of the court of first and second instance cannot be maintained as they are.

In light of the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Code and the language, legislative intent, etc. of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Code, it is still possible to do so.