The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court's punishment (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal of ex officio, the prosecutor examined the following facts: “The defendant was released on January 30, 2007 when he was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor on February 9, 2006 at the Seoul Eastern District Court for fraud, etc. and was released on January 30, 2007 and the remaining term of imprisonment was expired on March 31, 2007.

The addition and application of “Article 35 of the Criminal Act” was applied for the modification of a bill of indictment with the addition of “Article 35 of the Criminal Act,” and since this Court permitted it and changed its subject to adjudication, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed ex officio and the judgment below is reversed ex officio pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's improper assertion of sentencing, and it is again decided as follows.

Punishment of the crime

On February 9, 2006, the Defendant was released on January 30, 2007, and the remaining term of imprisonment was expired on March 31, 2007 while he was sentenced to one year and six months of imprisonment for fraud, etc. at the Seoul Eastern District Court.

The Defendant, at the F office located in Gangnam-gu Seoul on August 22, 2008, shows a monthly rent contract for the entertainment week located in Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul, in the name of the lessor G that the Defendant forged on August 30, 2007, to the victim I, and “2 places of entertainment week is KRW 50 million, monthly rent of KRW 50 million, and KRW 6,500,000, monthly rent of KRW 2,000,000, and may pay a lot of money when entering the sublease.

“A false representation made a contract with the victim on a deposit with KRW 100 million, monthly rent of KRW 20 million on the first and second floor of the H-ground and the second floor of the ground.”

However, the monthly rent contract, which the defendant shown to the victim, was forged by the defendant, and even if the contract on deposit with the victim was concluded, there was no intention or ability to make it possible for the victim.