사문서위조등
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding the facts) recognized that the Defendant forged and used the instant transaction contract in the name of C at the time and time indicated in the facts charged, but the lower court rendered a not-guilty verdict on the facts charged, so it erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment
2. Determination
A. The lower court determined as follows: (a) based on the reasoning stated in its reasoning, i.e., that the Defendant had no motive to forge the instant transaction agreement; and (b) the statement and evidence of relevant persons, including Hyundai Marine Personnel F, the complainant was forged, contrary to the assertion by the complainant.
Based on the fact that the instant sales contract is highly likely to be genuinely prepared for the purpose of obtaining a loan, the complainant prepared and submitted a considerably large number of contracts with the Defendant for the instant real estate sales contract, and there are no special reasons to prepare various contracts for the instant real estate sales contract with the Defendant, and criminal charges such as the charge of forging a private document, and the complainant is actually under criminal trial due to the charge of forging a private document in relation to the instant sales contract, etc., the complainant determined that it is insufficient to recognize the facts charged solely on the statement by the complainant or the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, which corresponds to the facts charged in the instant case.
B. 1) In a criminal trial, the recognition of facts constituting an offense ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value, which makes a judge not to have any reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to fully reach the degree of conviction as above, even if there is doubt of guilt, such as the defendant’s assertion or defense contradictory or uncomfortable dismissal, it should be determined in the interests of the defendant (see Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do774, Nov. 29, 2007; 2007Do7744, Apr. 2, 2011).