The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The punishment of the accused shall be determined by two years of imprisonment.

The summary of the grounds for appeal (two years and six months of imprisonment) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

Judgment

Each of the crimes of this case is an unfavorable sentencing factors, such as the fact that the defendant committed a crime by forging an application for the reissuance of a multiple corporate seal cards with intent to obtain money from a corporate account by sharing his/her roles with his/her accomplices, and that the crime was committed in a planned, organized, and intelligent manner, and that the public trust in the corporate seal imprint system has been significantly damaged, not only is it very poor, but also the necessity for punishment is very high, the document forged and used by the defendant is about 19, the total sum of the acquired amount is not less than 45,00,000 won, and furthermore, he/she instigated concealment of evidence to conceal the crime

However, all of the crimes are recognized by the defendant, the fact that the defendant is against himself, the fact that the defendant does not have the same criminal record, the fact that most of the amount acquired by the accomplices is deposited is favorable sentencing factors. Other factors such as the background of the crime in this case, circumstances after the crime, the defendant's age, sexual conduct, environment, etc., various sentencing data shown in the oral arguments, and the scope of recommended sentencing guidelines of the Sentencing Committee (one year to five years and six months), basic crimes and concurrent crimes of two types: forgery of private documents / [decision] forgery of private documents / [special document forgery, alteration, etc.] / Where significant social and economic harm is caused by a serious crime (the scope of recommended punishment / [the scope of recommended punishment], the scope of imprisonment with prison labor for one year to three years, and one year and five years and six months (the scope of punishment / one year and three years and six months) according to the sentencing guidelines of the Sentencing Committee. Thus, the court below's assertion that the defendant's punishment is too large to be recognized by comprehensively considering the upper limit of one-one and three years and three months).

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is reasonable, and the judgment of the court below is made in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act.