The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

However, the period of three years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. The decision of the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment) on the gist of the grounds of appeal is too unreasonable.

2. In light of the circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant, as an individual’s owner, operates the company, and for this purpose, has inflicted significant damage on the victim by committing the instant crime in which many other persons gather the name, and the fact that the crime is not good by taking advantage of the occupational status and leading up to the instant crime, etc., it is reasonable to impose strict punishment on the Defendant.

However, in the appellate trial, there are extenuating circumstances such as the fact that the defendant is both aware of and against all the crimes, that the victim does not want the punishment of the defendant, and that the defendant has no record of punishment for the same kind of crime.

In addition, the punishment of the lower judgment is too unreasonable in light of the following: (a) the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive and background leading to the instant crime; and (b) the circumstances after the instant crime were committed; and (c) the sentencing conditions as shown in the pleadings.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is reasonable, and the following is ruled again.

Criminal facts

The summary of facts and evidence recognized by the court is the same as the corresponding column of the judgment below, and thus, they are quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Article 231 of the Criminal Act (the same Article as private documents), Articles 234 and 231 of the Criminal Act (the use of each of the above investigation documents), Article 228(1) of the Criminal Act (the use of any false statement in the original of the fairness deed), Article 228(2) of the Criminal Act (the use of the original of the process certificate), Articles 356 and 355(1) of the Criminal Act concerning the crime (the use of the original of the process certificate that is false)

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes Act (only between the crimes of intent to carry out each of the above investigation documents with regard to Chapter 2 of the confirmation of the forgery in the judgment, and each of the nominal holders in the minutes of the board of directors forged in the judgment.