사문서위조등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor’s summary of the grounds of appeal, the defendant’s act constitutes the crime of forging a private person and the crime of uttering of a private investigator’s right, since it can be acknowledged that the defendant arbitrarily included the official seal of social welfare foundation D in the document form a picture file in the course of preparing the document “a case requesting performance hall rental” using a computer as an electronic file, and that the above document containing the official seal of the welfare foundation attached to the e-mail
Nevertheless, the court below erred by misunderstanding the fact that the court below acquitted the facts charged of this case, which affected the judgment.
2. A judgment ex officio was made in the trial, and the name of the previous indictment, applicable provisions of Acts, and facts charged (1) The prosecutor, on April 17, 2015, stated the applicable provisions of the Criminal Act as “Article 239-2 of the Criminal Act,” but the correction was made in error, although the applicable provisions of the crime in the crime in the private electromagnetic records, etc. were stated as “Article 239-2 of the Criminal Act”. In addition, Articles 234, 37, and 38 are amended as stated below. (2) Preliminaryly, the name of the crime was changed as stated in the following facts, and (3) the applicable provisions of the Act were applied for changes in the contents of the charges as stated in the separate facts charged, and the judgment below was no longer maintained.
3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that the above ground for ex officio reversal exists, and it is again decided as follows
The prosecutor's argument that the crime of this case constitutes the crime of forging a private person and the crime of uttering of a private person due to the above amendment of indictment is erroneous.