The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

8 copies of counterfeit documents issued by the Financial Services Commission.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court (one year and four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence (one year and four months of imprisonment) of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. We examine both the judgment and the prosecutor’s allegation of unreasonable sentencing.

The crime of this case is committed by the defendant who takes part in the organization of Bosing criminal, thereby forging an official document under the name of the Chairperson of the Financial Services Commission, and by misrepresenting the victims to be an employee of the Financial Supervisory Service, thereby deceiving 25 million won in total, which is very poor in light of the methods and contents of the crime.

Since the crime of Bosing is close and organized, it is difficult to crack down because it is difficult to control the crime, and since the scope of damage is a non-discriminatory and light, and its structural characteristics are not easy to recover from damage, it is necessary to punish the participants strictly.

However, in light of the following: (a) the Defendant led to the instant crime and reflects his mistake in depth; (b) the Defendant paid 9 million won to the victims in addition to the Defendant’s repayment at the lower court to the victims; (c) the Defendant paid 16 million won in full; (d) the victims do not want to punish the Defendant; (e) the Defendant’s wife and four children; (b) the Defendant must support his wife and four children; (c) the Defendant has no specific criminal history other than once before and after a fine due to drunk driving in 2002; and (d) other various sentencing conditions shown in the instant argument, such as the Defendant’s age, career, character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime; and (e) the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is reasonable, and the prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is with merit, and the judgment below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act and it is remanded after pleadings.