사문서위조등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The decision of the court below on the summary of the grounds for appeal (3 million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.
2. The Defendant, along with B in a de facto marital relationship, destroyed the safety and credit of transaction by forging and exercising an agreement on installment financing and erroneous discussion in the victim’s name during the process of purchasing a second-hand automobile under the name of the father, who is the father of B.
In light of the background of the crime of this case, relationship with the victim, etc., if considering the fact that the defendant committed the crime of this case even though he had the record of punishment for the same kind of crime, the defendant cannot be held liable for criminal liability corresponding thereto.
In full view of the aforementioned circumstances and the various sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments of this case, including the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, motive for committing the crime, and circumstances after committing the crime, it cannot be deemed that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.
Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.
3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.
However, the judgment of the court below is correct in accordance with Article 25 of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure, since the parts of the judgment below clearly erroneous or omitted are as follows.
① Of the column for “Application of Acts and subordinate statutes” in the 3rd sentence of the lower judgment, the phrase “Article 231 of each Criminal Act (the same Article as private documents), Articles 234 and 231 of each Criminal Act (the exercise of the said private document)” was “Articles 231, 30 of each Criminal Act (the use of private document) and Articles 234, 231, and 30 of each Criminal Act (the exercise of the said private document)” and “Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the former Criminal Act in the column for “Application of Acts and subordinate statutes” in the 7th sentence of the lower judgment.