사기등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.
Defendant 5, 6, the evidence of seizure No. 5 and 6.
1. The summary of the reasons for appeal is that the sentence imposed by the court below on the Defendants (each of four years of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.
2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal, the prosecutor examined ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for the appeal, and added Article 231 of the Criminal Act to the name of the crime against the Defendants in the trial of the party, and added Article 231 of the Criminal Act to the name of the crime against the Defendants. Of the facts charged in this case, the first clause of Article 1 of the Criminal Act stated in the facts charged as “the Defendants’ forgery of official documents and forgery of private documents,” and the first clause of Article 12-13 of the facts charged as “the Defendants forged public documents in the name of the Chairman of the Financial Services Commission and the Governor of the Financial Supervisory Service, who is an official document,” and applied for amendments to the indictment as “the documents in the name of the Chairman of the Financial Services Commission and the Governor of the Financial Supervisory Service, who is an official document, which is an official document,” and the judgment of the
3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Articles 364 (2) and 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendants' above unfair argument, and the judgment below is reversed, and it is again decided as follows through pleading.
【Grounds for the judgment in its entirety] The summary of the facts constituting an offense and evidence against the Defendants recognized by this court is correct as follows: “1. The Defendants’ forgery of official document” under Article 11 of the Criminal Procedure Act, i.e., Article 2 of the judgment of the court below, as “1. the Defendants’ forgery of official document,” and Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act, respectively; “The Chairman of the Financial Services Commission and the Financial Supervisory Service, which is an official document, forged a document under the name of the Chairman of the Financial Services Commission and the Governor of the Financial Supervisory Service, which is an official document,” and the summary of the evidence is identical to the corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, except for the addition of “1. Interrogation of the official document to K” under the name of the Chairman of the Financial Services Commission and the Financial Supervisory Service, which is a private document.