유가증권위조등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (6 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The Defendant was in de facto marital relationship to borrow money from bond holders;
D’s certificate of seal imprint, certificate of seal imprint, and certificate of seal imprint were used arbitrarily to forge and use a promissory note under D’s name. Accordingly, D’s demand for performance of debt for a considerable period of time, execution of compulsory execution against property, etc., caused the crime of fraud by borrowing a total of KRW 46 million from the Defendant and D’s figures, making a false statement about the purpose of use, change of capacity, etc., and without notifying D of the end of February 2009, it was recognized that the victims did not make payment without any contact until six years have passed after the prosecution, and that the victims did not immediately take measures to recover damage.
B. However, in light of the fact that the defendant led to the confession of the crime, and the defendant did not have any record of other crimes other than those sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years in October due to fraud in 2003, etc., the defendant paid 15 million won to the victim H in full at the court below, and he paid 19 million won to the victim G in full, and he agreed with the above victims by paying 5 million won out of the damaged amount of 19 million won to the victim G, D paid 2 million won to the victim L before the prosecution, as interest, before the defendant was prosecuted, and deposited 7 million won for the victim L at the court below before the prosecution, and other various circumstances that are the conditions for sentencing as shown in the argument of this case such as the defendant's age.
Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is justified.
3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, as the defendant's appeal is with merit.