사기등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (three years of imprisonment) of the lower court is too unreasonable because it is too unreasonable (the Defendant explicitly withdraws his/her assertion of misunderstanding of legal principles on the date of the first trial in the first instance trial in the first instance trial in the first instance trial in the first instance trial). 2. On February of the first instance trial of the lower court, the lower court requested the Defendant to amend the indictment to modify the facts charged, the name of the crime, and the applicable statutory provisions with regard to the crime of forging and forging private documents used for the purpose of forging and forging one promissory note in the name among the criminal facts in the case in the second instance No. 13 in the judgment of the lower court, and the crime of forging and forging documents among the criminal facts in the case in the second instance No. 2016 Go-Ba 13 in the judgment of the lower court
3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's unfair argument of sentencing, and the judgment below is reversed and it is again decided as follows.
Criminal facts
The summary of the facts constituting a crime and the evidence admitted by this court is as follows. The summary of the facts constituting a crime in the case No. 13 of the second order 2016 as stated in the judgment of the court below (the part on the 8th order from No. 4 to No. 18 to No. 7) is modified as follows. The summary of the evidence is as stated in the corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, except for adding "the previous facts: criminal records: criminal history inquiry, investigation report (Attachment, etc. of the judgment to A), five copies of the judgment, two copies of the case search in B, and three copies of the summary information inquiry of the case."
"2016 Highest 13"
1. The N’s charge of forging and forging private documents is based on the Defendant’s “D” office operated by the Defendant located in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City on May 8, 2014 without the consent of the O, its father, with loans as security from 106 dong 1501, Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government P apartment, which is owned by O, to use for living expenses, etc.