Of the crimes of Articles 1 through 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance, the crimes of forging private documents as of October 4, 2013, and uttering of private document as of October 4, 2013.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal: The punishment sentenced by the first instance judgment (as of October 4, 2013 among the crimes of paragraphs 1 through 3 in the form of printing, the crime of forging a private document as of October 4, 2013, the crime of uttering of a private document, six months of imprisonment for fraud, and four months of imprisonment for the remaining crimes) and the punishment sentenced by the second instance judgment (as of four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Of the crimes of Articles 1 through 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance, the crimes of forging private documents as of October 4, 2013 among the crimes of Articles 1 through 6, the crimes of uttering of the above investigation document, and the ex officio judgment on the judgment of the court of second instance, the court of first instance decided to concurrently examine each appeal case as to the judgment of the court of second instance. Among the crimes of Articles 1 through 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance, the crimes of forging private documents as of October 4, 2013 among the crimes of Article 6 of the judgment of the court of first instance, the crimes of forging private documents, the crimes of uttering of the above investigation document, the crimes of uttering of the above investigation document, and the concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act shall be sentenced to a single punishment within

This Court has no choice but to reverse this part of the judgment below.

B. Determination on the remaining crimes of the first instance judgment (the crime of uttering of an altered official document on November 9, 2016, the crime of forging a private document, the crime of uttering of a private document, the crime of uttering of a private document, and the crime of fraud), based on statutory penalty, is a discretionary judgment that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on the statutory penalty.

However, considering the unique area of the sentencing of the first instance court that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of directness taken by our Criminal Procedure Act and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the first instance sentencing judgment is deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively considering the conditions of sentencing as shown in the process of the first instance sentencing hearing and the sentencing criteria, or it is deemed unfair to maintain the first instance sentencing judgment as it is, comprehensively taking account of the materials newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing hearing.