We reverse the judgment of the court below.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Each punishment (the first instance court: 4 months of imprisonment and the second instance: 4 months of imprisonment) of the original court is unreasonable.

We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal for ex officio judgment.

The trial decided to consolidate each appeal case against the judgment below.

However, since each of the judgments of the court below against the defendant is in a concurrent relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, one of these crimes must be sentenced in accordance with Article 38 of the Criminal Act in the event that it is combined and ruled simultaneously.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.

Thus, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, and it is again decided as follows after oral argument.

[D.] The Criminal Procedure Act Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that a summary of the facts constituting an offense and the evidence recognized by the court and the summary of the evidence are as stated in the corresponding column of the judgment of the court below.

Application of Statutes

1. Article 232-2 of the Criminal Act, Articles 234 and 232-2 of the Criminal Act, Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 231 of the Criminal Act, Articles 234 and 231 of the Criminal Act for the crimes in question;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

1. Selection of each sentence of imprisonment;

1. The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning concurrent crimes;

1. Of concurrent offenders, the grounds for sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act recognize and reflects the Defendant’s crime. At the time of the instant crime, there was no criminal conviction, and the principle of equity should be taken into account when the judgment was rendered together with the crime of forging private documents, which became final and conclusive.