The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles did not delegate the authority of the defendant, the power of attorney was forged or exercised by stealing the name of the defendant by using the name of the defendant, such as using the name of the defendant without permission, the defendant's complaint is not false or is not intentional to the defendant.

B. The lower court’s sentence against an unfair defendant in sentencing (eight months of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) Ex officio determination (1) If a person who committed a false accusation voluntarily surrenders himself/herself before a judgment or disciplinary action on a case on which a false fact was reported or becomes final and conclusive, the punishment shall be mitigated or remitted (Articles 157 and 153 of the Criminal Act). The defendant led to the confession by an investigative agency (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do831, Apr. 9, 2004, etc.). Since the criminal case against D with respect to which the defendant was incompetent is not prosecuted and it is obvious that the trial becomes final and conclusive because it is not prosecuted, the judgment of the court below shall be mitigated or exempted from the punishment against the defendant in accordance with Articles 157 and 153 of the Criminal Act, but the judgment of the court below shall not be maintained as it is, unless it was omitted.

(2) However, even if there was such an ex officio fault, the assertion of mistake or misunderstanding of the legal principles still is subject to the judgment of the court, so this is examined.

B. (1) The lower court’s determination is based on the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence presented by the lower court, namely, ① the Defendant obtained loans under the name of the Defendant through D several times from March 21, 2013, and used money borrowed from the instant E as restaurant operating expenses; ② the Defendant issued a certificate of personal seal issued by himself/herself on April 12, 2013 to D in order to obtain a loan; ③ the Defendant has stolen his/her personal seal impression so that it did not return it.

D, however, in order to obtain a loan, D has a seal impression from the defendant.