The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of the summary of the grounds of appeal in this case’s sentencing conditions, the lower court’s punishment (two months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, two years of probation, and one hundred and sixty hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

2. There are extenuating circumstances to consider the motive for the instant crime, the charge of violating the Electric Utility Act in 2001, the charge of a fine of one million won for a violation of the Electric Utility Act in 2001, and the charge of false entry in the original copy of a notarial deed in 2010, there is no record of criminal punishment except for the criminal records subject to a summary order, the defendant actively participates in community service activities and contributed to the promotion of the welfare of local residents, the defendant has a family member to support, the defendant's wife desires to take a preference against the defendant, and the defendant's economic situation is favorable to the defendant.

However, the crime of forging private document is a crime that infringes on the safety and credit of transaction of documents and thus requires punishment. The total amount of the stock transaction value listed in the sales contract of this case and the securities transaction tax base return of the forged stock sales contract of this case reaches KRW 82 million, and due to the execution of each of the above private documents, E imposed taxes on E, a nominal holder of each of the above private documents, and causing interference with E in receiving investment proceeds and construction proceeds, and the defendant made the preparation of each of the private documents under the name of E inevitable because he does not call with E. However, E is inconsistent with the above vindication by stating that he did not have a proper telephone due to his promise with himself, but it is inconsistent with E by stating that he did not have a proper telephone, and considering other various matters stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, which are the conditions for sentencing, such as the age, character, and environment of the defendant as indicated in the records and arguments of this case, it cannot be deemed that the punishment of the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit.