The part of the first judgment on the defendant shall be reversed.

The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a year.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The punishment of each judgment of the court below (the first judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for 1 year and 6 months, and the second judgment: fine of 6 million won) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

A. The first instance judgment (the first instance judgment) was examined ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant, and the prosecutor changed the name of the defendant against the facts charged in the first instance judgment (the court 2014Kadan4602) from "violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the thief)" to "Habitual special larceny and attempted habitual larceny", and the applicable provisions of law are changed to "Article 5-4(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes)" and "Article 32, 331(2) and (1), and Article 342 and Article 331(2) of the Criminal Act" in "Article 332, Article 332, Article 331(2) of the Criminal Act". Since the

B. Two of the judgment of the court of first instance as to whether the judgment of the court of second instance is unreasonable or not, but the punishment of the court of first instance is imprisonment with prison labor, and the punishment of the court of second instance differs from one another as a fine. As seen thereafter, the judgment of the court of second instance is not a case where the punishment of the court of second instance is maintained as it is and is punished as a single sentence

Therefore, we examine the grounds for appeal against each judgment of the court below.

The fact that the defendant reflects his mistake and the fact that the money is returned to the victim, etc. is favorable sentencing factors, but the crime of this case is committed by acquiring the money of apartment mortgage loan from the financial institution by forging the document, and the crime of this case is classified and planned, and thus the nature of the crime is bad, and the defendant actively participated in the act of execution, such as making the false statement to the employee in charge of the loan and preparing the document, etc., is an unfavorable sentencing factor.