The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

except that this judgment.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the original judgment (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment of the defendant, after forging a private document, uses the forged private document as a means of deceiving the victim, and in light of the method of deceiving the third party by using his/her own occupation, the crime is not good, and the fraud amount caused by the fraud amount to 75 million won in total, and the crime of violation of the Act on the Business of Certified Private Brokerage and Report of Real Estate Transactions violates the public confidence and the establishment of fair and transparent real estate transaction order in the real estate brokerage system is disadvantageous.

However, the sentence of the court below is too unfair in light of all the sentencing conditions, such as the defendant's age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence, and circumstances after the crime, etc., in light of the following circumstances: (a) the defendant has no past record of being punished as a sentence until now; (b) the defendant agreed with the victims at the time of the trial; (c) the balance between the case where the judgment was rendered concurrently with the crime of embezzlement; and (d) the father and the wife of the defendant wanting to dismiss the defendant's wife against the defendant; and (e) the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable.

3. As the defendant's appeal is with merit, the part of the judgment below against the defendant among the judgment below pursuant to Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act is reversed, and the following is ruled again after pleading.

Criminal facts

On February 6, 2014, the first head of the lower judgment’s criminal facts, “Defendant A was sentenced to probation two years of imprisonment with labor due to occupational embezzlement, two years of probation, two hundred hours of community service order and observation of protection, and the prosecutor appealed on October 16, 2014, which became final and conclusive on October 24, 2014.

“Defendant A” on February 6, 2014.