The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, fabrication of private documents and the facts charged.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds of appeal is too unreasonable.

2. Examining the record of this case’s ex officio determination on concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment with prison labor on November 7, 2014 by the Incheon District Court for occupational embezzlement, etc. and such judgment became final and conclusive on January 9, 2015.

Since the above crime of occupational embezzlement, etc., for which judgment became final and conclusive, in relation to concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, a punishment shall be determined by taking into account equity and equity in cases where a judgment is concurrently rendered pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, the judgment of the court below

3. Judgment ex officio on the charge of forging private documents and uttering of private documents;

A. On February 15, 2012, the Defendant: (a) prepared a real estate lease agreement under which the Seo-gu Incheon Seo-gu Office of Real Estate in Gyeyang-gu, Incheon (hereinafter “instant loan”) leases KRW 302, 27 million to I by February 21, 2014; (b) stated “D” in the lessor’s name column; and (c) affixed D’s seal in advance to D’s name, thereby forging one copy of the real estate lease agreement in the name of D; and (d) exercised I with the real estate lease agreement in the name of D.

B. (1) As to the crime concerning documents under the Criminal Act, the term “a document forgery” refers to the preparation of a document by a person who is not authorized to prepare the document in the name of another person. Therefore, in preparing a private document, if there is an explicit or implied consent or delegation from the nominal owner, it shall not be deemed that the document forgery constitutes a private document forgery

In particular, if a document titleholder comprehensively delegates his/her authority to conduct affairs related to the preparation of a document to the document maker in advance, and the document keeper prepares and exercises a document in the name of the document titleholder for the performance of his/her affairs within the scope of the authority delegated by the document originator, the document keeper may prepare individual documents.