The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (five million won of a fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing ex officio, the record reveals that the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for 8 months on July 17, 2015 with respect to the charge of forging private documents at the Goyang branch of the Goyang branch of the Jung-gu District Court, which became final and conclusive on November 4, 2015. Since the crime in the judgment of the court below is one of the concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act with the crime of forging private documents for which judgment has become final and conclusive, the sentence shall be determined after examining whether to reduce or exempt the sentence in accordance with Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, taking into account the case of concurrent judgment and equity, and therefore, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any further.

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, on the grounds of ex officio reversal as seen above, and it is again decided as follows.

Criminal facts

The summary of the facts charged and the evidence admitted by this court is as follows: “The defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for 8 months on July 17, 2015 with prison labor for the crime of forging private documents at the Goyang branch of the Jung-gu District Court at the Goyang Branch of the District Court at the time of original trial, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on November 4, 2015.” The summary of the evidence is as follows: “1. Defendant’s original trial statement” in the front part of the summary of the evidence; and “1.............. the Defendant’s original trial statement” in the last part is identical to each corresponding part of the judgment of the court below, except for addition of “the Defendant’

Application of Statutes

1. Article 95 and Article 91 (1) 1 of the Trademark Act (Selection of Fines) concerning facts constituting an offense;

1. The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning concurrent crimes;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that a provisional payment order shall be issued.