The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the victim J.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

According to the relevant civil judgment on the establishment of the crime of attempted fraud (the attempted fraud) by mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal principles, the act of repaying the loan of this case claimed by the victims is not against C, and it is not effective as the act of repaying the loan of this case is not against C, and at the time the defendant applied for the payment order of this case, the act of applying for the payment order of this case does not constitute the execution of the lawsuit fraud.

With respect to the application of the victim J cases to relatives, the victim J is a person other than the defendant's husband's husband X, and from the time when the defendant married with her husband and reported her husband as her husband, the victim J is registered as the natural father of the family register, family relation certificate, etc. from the time when her husband reported her husband as her husband. The victim J constitutes the defendant's lineal blood relative and the defendant's attempted fraud to the victim J is exempted from punishment due to the application of Article 328

The sentence of unfair sentencing (six months of imprisonment) by the court below is too unreasonable.

If there are two or more persons in charge of preparing documents in an ex officio judgment, one document is established for each nominal owner, and if two or more persons have forged a document jointly signed, several crimes of forging documents are established according to the number of persons in charge of preparing documents.

In addition, the act of forging the life-sustaining document is one of the acts of natural observation or social norms, and therefore, the above several crimes of forging documents constitutes an ordinary concurrent crime as stipulated in Article 40 of the Criminal Code.

(See Supreme Court Decision 87Do564 delivered on July 21, 1987, etc.). Furthermore, an act of exercising forged documents under joint signature by two or more persons also exercising a forged document en bloc as a single act according to the number of persons under whose name the document is prepared, and thus, constitutes a single act of uttering of a falsified investigation document.

Of the facts charged in this case, the crime of forging private documents due to the forgery of the loan certificate in the name of the L and H and J and the submission of the above loan certificate.