The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The defendant pays 200 million won to the applicant for compensation. The above compensation order shall be issued.

1. The decision of the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment) on the gist of the grounds of appeal is too unreasonable.

2. The defendant shows his attitude to reflect in depth the error.

On the other hand, it was planned that the money received from the injured party's purchase price was immediately lent to the defendant's partner or used for personal purposes.

The defendant, who acquired 200 million won from the injured party, has also forged the document under the name of another person to know the victim who demanded the return of the borrowed money.

The damage has not been recovered until three years have passed since the crime was committed in excess of the amount of damage.

The defendant has a criminal history of the same type of fraud crime, including criminal records, and has been punished as a crime of forging a private document, or a crime of gambling a document of the investigation.

The victim D also sought a strict punishment against the defendant in the trial of the party.

Unlike the original judgment, there is no reason to change the sentencing favorable to the defendant.

In addition, even if the court below's sentencing factors, such as the defendant's age, living environment, motive and background of the crime, circumstances after the crime, relationship with the victim, and criminal records, and the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court as stated by the court below are considered, the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable.

The defendant's argument of sentencing is difficult to accept.

3. The Defendant’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the Defendant’s appeal is without merit. Since an application for remedy order filed by the applicant for compensation is well-grounded, it is decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices, citing Articles 25 and 31 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings