The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. There was no opportunity to attend the original judgment, even though the existence of the grounds for the request for retrial was unaware of the fact in the original judgment.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the reasons for appeal by authority.

In the trial of the party, the prosecutor added "the forgery of the signature of the company and the exercise of signature on the investigation" to "Article 239 (1) and (2) of the Criminal Act" under the applicable law, and applied law to the case where the prosecutor applied for the modification of the indictment with the contents of the revised indictment 3 and (4). Since this court permitted this, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any longer due to the change in the subject of the judgment.

[Defendants 3 and 4]

3. On December 28, 2012, the Defendant: (a) signed on the front of Guri-si, B; (b) on the slope E affiliated with D of the Guri Police Station D, for the purpose of exercising the crackdown on drinking driving; (c) signed the “interpellation on the result of the crackdown on drinking driving” on the F’s name for the purpose of exercising the control over drinking driving at the portable session of the police station, and forged the F’s signature; and (d) presented the forged signature to E without knowledge of the forgery.

4. The Defendant, at the time, at the place specified in paragraph 3, presented “the State driver’s circumstantial report” and “a letter of consent to blood collection” written by a slope E on the basis of the Defendant’s statement. For the purpose of exercising, without authority, entered “F” in each driver’s and confirmation column, signed on the name and affixed the letter of consent to blood collection, and forged the State driver’s circumstantial report and the letter of consent to blood collection in the name of F, which is a private document on the proof of fact, and presented the forged document to E, who is aware of the forgery.

3. Determination as to the existence of reasons for the request for review.