사문서위조등
The judgment below
The guilty part shall be reversed.
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court found the Defendant guilty on the charge of forging private documents and uttering of the above investigation documents, and sentenced a fine of two million won, and acquitted the Defendant on the charge of occupational embezzlement.
Accordingly, the Defendant appealed from the judgment of the court below on the grounds of mistake of the facts as to the guilty portion and the illegality of sentencing. The prosecutor appealed from the judgment of the court below on the grounds of mistake of the facts as to the acquittal portion and the illegality of sentencing as to the guilty portion, and the judgment prior to the remanding of the case was sentenced to both dismissal of the appeal
Defendant
Only before the remand, the appeal was filed against the guilty portion of the judgment before the remand, and the acquittal portion was separated and finalized as the prosecutor did not appeal.
The Supreme Court accepted the defendant's appeal and reversed the conviction part of the judgment prior to the remand, and remanded this part of the case to the trial.
Therefore, the scope of trial shall be limited to the guilty part of the judgment of the court below.
2. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant (1) did not require G to prepare a acquisition tax return under H’s name, as stated in the lower judgment, and there was no fact that the Defendant misleads Defendant of the fact.
Even if H impliedly consented to the filing of acquisition tax return or it can be recognized that H's constructive consent thereto was accepted, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged.
(2) The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (2 million won) is too unreasonable.
B. The Prosecutor’s sentence is too uneased and unreasonable.
3. Determination
A. (1) The summary of the facts charged is without authority for the purpose of exercising the right to exercise the acquisition tax, even if the Defendant, on the second floor of the E judicial scrivener office in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Building on the date of 2011, delegated the acquisition tax report of the members of F reconstruction Association (hereinafter “instant association”) to G in a lump sum to the Head of E judicial scrivener Office G, and H did not purchase the I apartment commercial building without authority.