2. All appeals concerning the defendant's crime of forging private documents and the prosecutor's remaining appeals are dismissed.

If the first instance judgment as cited by the lower court and the evidence admitted by the lower court are examined by comparing them with the records, they may fully recognize the Defendant’s charges of forging, accompanying, unaffording, and attempted fraud of private documents of this case, which the lower court found the Defendant guilty, as well as the lower court’s judgment did not properly conduct the deliberation as stated in the theory of litigation, and it cannot be deemed that there was an error of law, i.e.,

2. Judgment on the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor

A. On March 12, 198, the lower court stated the facts charged as follows: “The Defendant, at the office of Samcheon Construction Co., Ltd. 504, 239-4, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, 1991, stated the following as follows: (a) for the purpose of undermining the construction of a multi-household house located in Seongbuk-gun, 319, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Sung-gun, the 319, the Defendant entered the facts charged as a tril construction using a triloid as an official box used for the storage of the supplied goods on the simplified tax invoices in the name of Non-Indicted 12, 198; and (b) for the reason that each of the above facts charged as stated in the summary tax invoices, he/she did not know of the same column among the simplified tax invoices, and subsequently, he/she did not know that he/she completed the alteration of each of the simplified tax invoices prepared in the 97th 197th 197, 197.

B. According to Article 254(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, entry of the facts charged in the indictment must be made by specifying the time, place, and method of the crime. Since the purpose of the indictment is to specify the scope of request for a trial to the court and to specify the scope of defense against the defendant, the time, place, and method of the crime should be specified to the extent that the identity of the facts charged can be sufficiently recognized in the indictment.

However, according to the facts charged in the indictment of this case, with respect to the facts charged that the defendant altered a simplified tax invoice as of November 12, 1988 in the name of the non-indicted pro form and exercised the altered private document twice, the court below dismissed the prosecution on the ground that it is not specified in the indictment of this case, although it is obvious that the time and place of each crime, the motive, means, results, etc. of the crime, and the method of using the altered document and the contents of the altered document are specified specifically, and it is clearly specified to the extent that the identity of the facts charged can be sufficiently recognized, since the facts charged in this case are not specified. Thus, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the entries in the facts charged, nor by misapprehending the legal principles as to the facts charged, and since such illegality is obviously affected by the conclusion of the judgment, there

However, among the facts charged by the court below, with regard to the remainder except that the defendant altered the above simplified tax invoices as of November 12, 198, the above simplified tax invoices and exercised them twice in the above title, among the facts charged, the defendant's alteration is merely stated in the indictment "67 copies of simplified tax invoices in the name of e.g., uniforms, etc.", and the alteration is not specified in the indictment, and it is comprehensively stated that it was entered in the public column, which is used for the storage of the supplied goods, and only in a comprehensive manner, it cannot be seen as having altered the documents of the defendant. Thus, it cannot be deemed as having specified the facts charged in a way that the defendant alters the documents. Therefore, since the entries in the facts charged that the defendant exercised them over 67 times as of November 12, 198, which was altered, are the objects of the exercise of such private documents, the court below's dismissal of the charges cannot be viewed as having erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to this part of the charges.

3. Therefore, among the dismissed parts of the judgment of the court below, the part on the charges that the defendant altered a simplified tax invoice on November 12, 198 in the name of the above pro ratas and exercised the altered private document twice cannot be reversed. The defendant's appeal as to each of the charges found guilty is without merit. However, the part on the guilty part of the judgment of the court below, except for the crime of forging private documents, which is sentenced separately, shall be reversed, is in the relation between the crime of altering private documents and the crime of uttering of the same document and the crime of concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Thus, the part on the guilty part of the judgment of the court below shall also be reversed.

Therefore, among the guilty parts of the judgment below, the part concerning the crime of uttering of a falsified document, the crime of false accusation, and the crime of attempted fraud among the dismissed parts of the judgment of the court below as to each of the charges that the defendant altered one copy of a simplified tax invoice as of November 12, 198, in the name of the non-indicted Uniform and used the altered private document twice, and the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. On the other hand, the remainder of the defendant's appeal (as to the part concerning which the defendant found guilty of the crime of forging a private document 1-A and sentenced a punishment separately) and the remainder of the prosecutor's remaining appeal (as to the charges that the defendant altered 67 copies of a private document and used the altered private document twice, it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon-young (Presiding Justice)