The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and eight months.

One driver's license, which has been seized, shall be an injection.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to the fact-misunderstanding or misapprehension of legal principles, H did not inflict an injury due to the Defendant’s act and did not forge a driver’s license with the intent of the Defendant to exercise in relation to the fact of the Article of the official document, and the forged driver’s license cannot be deemed as a document. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years of imprisonment, confiscation, and collection) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principle or mistake of facts

A. According to the evidence cited by the lower court, such as the statement of H on the part related to special injury, etc., the Defendant’s mistake or misapprehension of legal doctrine on this part is without merit, inasmuch as it prevents the Defendant from driving a car due to a vehicle’s loss of driver’s seat or the front of the car, etc. in order to resist the Defendant’s behavior committed in H’s toilet, it can be acknowledged that the Defendant was forced to drive a car for a limited period of three weeks by driving the car, thereby resulting in the Defendant’s loss of the body part of the body part of the fingers and dives of the body part of the fingers, which requires a three-day medical treatment.

B. If a forged driver’s license seized by the evidence cited by the lower court on the part related to the fabrication of an official document is displayed, the Defendant can obtain his driver’s license for the purpose of exercising the right, obtain a partial revision of his resident registration number, and output it. The Defendant’s act constitutes the crime of forging an official document, and thus, constitutes the crime of forging an official document, and the Defendant’s mistake or misapprehension of the legal doctrine is also without merit.

3. The fact that the defendant agreed with the victims who have been involved in the obstruction of business in the trial, and the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant case are set forth in the judgment of the court.