The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the facts and legal principles, the Defendant: (a) registered a business operator of G (hereinafter “G”) in the name of the Defendant’s spouse in accordance with the direction of the representative director I of the E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”); (b) completed the instant notice of request for approval to transfer rights, rights, and obligations to a third party under the name of E (hereinafter “the instant notice”); and (c) delivered it to the employees of K (hereinafter “K”); and (d) I transferred the security card supply business right to K to the Defendant.

On the other hand, although acquiring the above business in G’s name and supplying K with a security card, the lower court convicted the Defendant of mistake of facts or of misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal. The summary of the instant criminal facts No. 2 is that “the defendant delivered a copy of the instant notice that the defendant forged and a copy of the instant contract to K employee as if the document was duly formed.” This is a case where a single act constitutes a commercial concurrent crime by constituting two of the instant investigation documents and constitutes a commercial concurrent crimes, but the court below’s judgment did not contain “1. Commercial concurrent crimes: Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act” in the column for application of the law of the court below. Thus, the court below’s judgment cannot be maintained.

However, despite the above reasons for reversal of authority, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court.

B. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, namely, E representative director I.