사문서변조등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Since the subject matter of the instant lease agreement includes not only the instant building but also its site, the Defendant’s entry of “364” in the lot column in the indication of real estate in the instant lease agreement does not create new probative value.
Nevertheless, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts charged of this case and misunderstanding the legal principles.
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. There was no new objective reason that could affect the formation of a documentary evidence in the appellate court’s trial process of a determination of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, and the determination of the value of evidence in the first instance was clearly erroneous
Where there is no reasonable ground to deem that the argument leading to the fact-finding is remarkably unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules, etc., the judgment on the fact-finding of the first instance court shall not be reversed without permission (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017). The Defendant asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal of this case in the lower court, and the lower court convicted each of the facts charged of this case by taking into account the evidence in its judgment.
Examining the above judgment of the court below in a thorough comparison with the records, the judgment of the court below was clearly erroneous.
There is no reasonable ground to deem that the argument leading to the fact-finding is remarkably unfair because it is against logical and empirical rules.
In addition, there is no new objective reason to affect the formation of a conviction in the appellate trial process.
Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.
3. The Defendant’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing is a previous conviction except for the punishment of a fine in 1997.