The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

except that for 4 years from the date this judgment becomes final.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment sentenced by the court below to the Defendants (four years of imprisonment with prison labor) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible.

2. Ex officio determination

A. The lower court applied Article 14(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (hereinafter “former Sexual Crimes Punishment Act”) with respect to the crime of paragraph (a) of paragraph (1) of Article 1 of the lower judgment as indicated in the lower judgment.

However, Article 14(1) of the current Sexual Violence Punishment Act provides that statutory punishment shall be imprisonment for not more than five years or a fine not exceeding 30 million won, and Article 14(1) of the former Sexual Violence Punishment Act (amended by Act No. 15977, Dec. 18, 2018) provides that statutory punishment shall be imprisonment for not more than five years or a fine not exceeding 10 million won, and Article 1(1) of the Criminal Act provides that “the establishment and punishment of a crime shall be governed by the Act at the time of the act.” As such, Article 14(1) of the current Sexual Violence Punishment Act provides that “Article 14(1) of the current Sexual Violence Punishment Act shall not apply to the crime under Article 14(2) of the former Sexual Violence Punishment Act committed by a defendant prior to the amendment and enforcement of the current Sexual Violence Punishment Act.”

The lower court, while declaring a judgment on December 21, 2018, erred by applying Article 14(1) of the current Sexual Violence Punishment Act concerning the crime of Article 1(b) as indicated in the lower judgment.

B. Although Article 32(2) of the Criminal Act provides that “the punishment of accessories shall be mitigated to less than that of the principal offender,” the lower court, while recognizing the Defendant B as guilty of the crime of private signature, forging, aiding, or aiding and abetting the use of the investigation signature or aiding and abetting the use of the aforesaid investigation signature or aiding and abetting the Defendant B,

C. Defendant A’s violation of the Sexual Violence Punishment Act and the rest of Defendant B’s violation of the Sexual Violence Punishment Act, the crime of signing, forging, or aiding and abetting a private signature, and the rest of the crime of aiding and abetting and aiding and abetting a criminal act are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, one sentence should be imposed in accordance with Article 38(