The judgment of the court of first instance except for compensation order and the judgment of the court of second instance shall be reversed.

Two years of imprisonment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to Defendant (i.e., mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles on the crime of paragraph (3) of the judgment of the court below, the crime of attempted uttering of forged official document is established only on the ground that K, the other party to the document, was aware that the document was forged.

B. The punishment of the lower court on unreasonable sentencing (the first instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for two years, confiscation, and imprisonment with prison labor for two years) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s 2nd sentence is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Each court of original judgment, after completing the hearing on the Defendant, sentenced each of the above imprisonment with prison labor.

As to each judgment of the court below, the prosecutor appealed against the judgment of the court of second instance, and this court decided to hold concurrent hearings of the appealed cases.

However, each of the crimes in the judgment of the court below against the defendant is a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and a single sentence shall be sentenced pursuant to Article 38 (1) of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained

However, there are reasons for the above ex officio reversal in the judgment below.

Even if the above argument of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, it is examined.

3. The term “exercise” of a document regarding a defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles means using a document prepared by forgery, etc. as a document.

As the other party can recognize the content of the document, such as presentation, delivery, delivery, keeping, inspection, etc., the content of the document is in a state where the other party can recognize the content of the document, and there is no need to know or harm the content.

이러한 법리에 비추어 보면, 설령 문서 교부 상대방인 K이 피고인이 행사하는 문서가 위조되었다는 정을 눈치챘다...