The part of the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1’s misunderstanding of the facts (the second half of the judgment of the court below 2016 high order 6702) did not change the valuable securities as stated in the first instance judgment 2016 high order 6702, supra.

2) The alteration of securities does not constitute a crime of alteration of securities, since the alteration of securities was not a valuable security, but a photographic file that was made together with the first instance judgment of KRW 2016, the second instance judgment of KRW 6702, which was rendered in the first instance judgment of the lower court (2016, the second instance judgment of the first instance).

3) Improper sentencing of the lower court (the first instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for a year and two months, and the second instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for a year and two months) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant P (No. 2 in the judgment of the second instance) did not constitute a forgery or use of private document in collusion with the joint Defendant A, as stated in the facts constituting an offense in Article 1376(2) of the High Court Decision 2018 Go-dan 1376(2).

2) The sentence of the lower court’s second sentence (one month imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on Defendant A

A. 1) The Defendant filed an appeal against the lower judgment, and the instant court decided to jointly deliberate on the said appeal case.

Each crime of the judgment below against the defendant is one of the concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and a sentence shall be imposed within the scope of the term of punishment aggravated for concurrent crimes pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.

2) The record reveals that the Defendant was sentenced to eight months of imprisonment for fraud at the Cheongju District Court on July 21, 2017, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on September 30, 2017.

The above crime of fraud, for which each crime and judgment in the first instance judgment against the defendant have become final and conclusive, is in the relation of concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and in accordance with Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, a punishment for each of the crimes of this case shall be sentenced in consideration of equity with the concurrent judgment at the same time under

In this respect, the judgment of the first instance cannot be maintained as it is.

3) However, notwithstanding the above reasons for reversal ex officio, the Defendant’s mistake of facts and legal principles are erroneous.