The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the Defendant (Definite) conspired with husband Q and forged a certificate of loan under the name of C (Representative E, hereinafter “C”) or N, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on a different premise, it erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Even though there is no change in circumstances in sentencing factors following the issuance of a summary order by the prosecutor (unfair punishment), the lower court sentenced a fine of KRW 2 million by reducing more than half of the fine amount of the summary order (five million won), and the above sentencing of the lower court is unfair as it is too unfasible.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor.

When there are two or more persons in charge of preparing documents, one document for each nominal owner is established, and when two or more persons in charge of forging a document jointly signed by them, several crimes of forging documents are established according to the number of persons in charge of preparing the document, and the act of forging the document jointly signed by them constitutes a single act according to natural observation or social norms. As such, several crimes of forging documents constitutes a commercial concurrent crime as stipulated in Article 40 of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Do564, Jul. 21, 1987); furthermore, the act of exercising a forged document jointly signed by two or more persons constitutes a single act, and thus, the act of uttering a forged document constitutes a single act, and thus, the act of uttering several persons in charge of utteringing the document jointly signed by two or more persons constitutes a commercial concurrent crime.

The facts charged of this case are as follows: the defendant forged a certificate of borrowing one in the name of C and N2 (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”), and submitted the above forged loan certificate to a public official belonging to the Seoul Northern District Court on his name and exercised it. As seen above, the crime of forging documents under joint signature of two or more persons and the crime of exercising it are each criminal law.