The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a year and a fine of three hundred thousand won.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for up to one year and four months and fine of up to 300,000 won) of the lower court against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. In light of the frequency and degree of the crime of this case, the crime of this case is not less complicated; the defendant was sentenced to a fine several times due to the crime of interference with business and obstruction of performance of official duties; the defendant again committed the crime of this case despite the past record of being sentenced to suspended execution due to the crime of forging private documents and the crime of uttering of the above investigation documents; however, the defendant is disadvantageous to the defendant; however, the defendant is led to the confession of the crime of this case and his mistake is divided. Among the victims of this case, K does not want the punishment of the defendant; the defendant did not have the criminal power exceeding suspended execution; the defendant did not have the criminal power; the various sentencing conditions under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the defendant's age, character, character, environment, motive, means and consequence; the crime of which sentencing guidelines have been established; the crime of which the sentencing guidelines have not been set; and the crime of which the sentencing guidelines have not been set; thus, the sentencing guidelines set only the minimum limit of the sentencing guidelines set under Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

The first crime: The scope of the punishment of imprisonment with prison labor for six months to two years: the category of the crime of private document and the first category of the punishment of recommendation: the scope of the punishment of the punishment of the punishment of the punishment of the punishment of the punishment of the punishment of the punishment of the punishment of the punishment of the punishment of the punishment of the punishment of the punishment of the punishment of the punishment of the punishment of the punishment of the punishment of the punishment of the crimes of the punishment of the punishment of the punishment of the punishment of the punishment of the crimes of the crimes of the punishment of the punishment of the punishment of the punishment of the punishment of the punishment of the punishment of the punishment of the crimes of the crimes of the crimes of the punishment of the punishment of the punishment of the punishment of the punishment of the punishment of the punishment of the punishment of the punishment of the punishment of the punishment of the punishment of the punishment of the punishment of the punishment of

Therefore, the defendant's argument of unfair sentencing is justified.

3. Conclusion.