공문서위조등
All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Each sentence of the lower court against the Defendants (e.g., Defendant A: 2 years of imprisonment; Defendant B’s imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months) is too unreasonable.
B. The prosecutor (misunderstanding of facts as to the acquittal portion) stated in the “Scope of appeal” column of the petition of appeal that “the entire (in fact-finding and unreasonable sentencing)” but did not state only the grounds for appeal of mistake of facts as to the acquittal portion of the lower judgment, and did not state specific reasons as to the unfair sentencing.
When a prosecutor appeals to the whole judgment of the first instance that found a guilty or partially guilty, or acquitted a part of the judgment of the first instance, if the prosecutor only stated the phrase “unfair punishment” in the petition of appeal or the statement of grounds of appeal, but did not state the specific reasons, it shall not be deemed a legitimate statement in the grounds of appeal
(Supreme Court Decision 2016Do19824 Decided March 15, 2017). Therefore, the prosecutor’s allegation of unfair sentencing cannot be deemed to have submitted legitimate grounds of appeal, and thus, it is not separately determined.
1) As to the facts charged in the judgment of the court below against Defendant A, in light of the fact that the final owner of the money in question is Defendant A, it is recognized that the above Defendant deceivings Defendant B. (2) As to the facts charged in the non-guilty part in the judgment of the court below against Defendant B, Defendant A stated in the prosecutor’s office that “the document is prepared in accordance with the Defendant B’s oral statement,” as to the loan certificate, the process of preparation is unclear, whereas A Q stated that Defendant B was present at the time of preparation of each of the above documents, this part of the facts charged is found guilty.
2. Determination on the grounds for appeal
A. 1) The lower court, based on C’s statement, requested that both the Defendant and AV lend money at the time, but there is a security.