The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The punishment of the accused shall be determined by a year of imprisonment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The act of the misunderstanding the legal doctrine by arbitrarily preparing a written confirmation under the name of another person is an act of forging evidence concerning another person's criminal case and forging another person's document concerning the proof of fact at the same time. Thus, the crime of forging evidence and forging private documents are crimes of regular concurrence.

In addition, one act of submitting a forged confirmation document by the defendant to an investigative agency is also an act of using forged evidence about another's criminal case and at the same time exercising the above investigation document, so the crime of forging evidence and the crime of conducting the above investigation document are also a common concurrent crime.

In this context, considering the purport of the precedent (Supreme Court Decision 2000Do1216 Decided February 9, 2001), the crime of forging private documents and the crime of forging the above investigation documents are in a commercial concurrent relationship, even though there is a substantive concurrent relationship, since the crime of forging evidence is committed in relation to this crime and the crime of forging evidence is committed in relation to each other, it is necessary to punish one of them as the crime of forging evidence, which is the most severe crime, and it is not necessary to make an aggravated punishment.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby seeing the crime of fabrication of evidence, fabrication of private documents, and the crime of deception of the above investigation documents as substantive concurrent crimes, and making a mistake in increasing concurrent crimes.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of ex officio appeal, we examine the part concerning the charge of forging evidence among the facts charged in the instant case ex officio.

The prosecutor asserts that each of the certificates in the name of I, J, K, L, M, N,O, and P (hereinafter referred to as "I, etc.") is a crime of fabrication of evidence, where the defendant arbitrarily prepares and submits them to the investigation agency without the consent of the nominal owner.

"Evidence" in the crime of fabrication of evidence under Article 155 (1) of the Criminal Act, which is established when the evidence of another person's criminal or disciplinary case is forged, shall be construed as an investigation agency or court with respect to another person's criminal or disciplinary case.