The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal stated that “the certified copy of the instant registry and the date of pleading are not all the originals,” and even if misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, a copy of a document reproduced using an electronic reproduction apparatus, reproduction transmission apparatus, or other similar apparatus is also the document having the same meaning as the original document pursuant to Article 237-2 of the Criminal Act, which is the object of the crime of fabrication of document and the crime of conspiracy of document. The act of making a copy of a document entirely different from its contents by copying it by using a copy of the authentic document constitutes an act of creating a separate document that is likely to impair public credit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do2855, Sept. 5, 200). The above assertion is without merit.

The sentence of the lower court (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. There are extenuating circumstances, such as the fact that the judgment should take into account the equity in the case of being tried along with the crime of embezzlement as indicated in the judgment below, and the fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case and reflected against it.

However, considering the fact that the defendant has been punished several times for forgery of the same official document, and that the defendant committed the crime of this case during the repeated crime due to fabrication of the official document, and that the crime of this case was acquired by the victim and acquired money from the victim, and that it was intended to use it by forging the official document to conceal it, the crime of this case has not been restored, the damage has not been recovered, and other various sentencing conditions such as the defendant's age, sex, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, degree of damage, and circumstances after the crime, etc., it cannot be said that the punishment imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is without merit and it is in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.