The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., punishment Nos. 1 and 2-A. of the original judgment): Imprisonment with prison labor for one year, 2-b.(c), and 3-related crimes: imprisonment with prison labor for two years, and 3-related crimes as stated in the original judgment) is too unreasonable.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect them. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the judgment of the first instance court solely on the ground that it is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court, and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ

(Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015 (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). It is recognized that: (a) the Defendant recognized the instant crime; (b) returned benefits arising from the instant crime of violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act to the parties; (c) a lawyer who stolen the name in the crime of forging each private document was placed in the lower court’s preference against the Defendant at the lower court on August 22, 2018 and March 4, 2019; and (d) the partial crime of the instant case (crime 1 and 2-A. of the original judgment) takes into account the equity between the case where the judgment is to be rendered simultaneously with

However, the crime of forging the instant fraud, fabrication of private documents, and uttering of a falsified document is a criminal act of forging money from the victim under the pretext of recognition and delivery, and a criminal act of forging a written agreement, etc. in which the victim received a large amount of money by repeating the medical lawsuit requested by the victim for several years in order to conceal the fact that the medical lawsuit requested by the victim has not run, and the victim has forged and used it. When the crime was committed, the Defendant committed the crime of forging private documents on July 19, 2017 under the same law while being tried due to the crime of forging the public document as stated in the first head of the original judgment of the lower court. The Defendant committed the crime of