사문서위조등
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal, the Defendant, along with C, has a seal imprint of D with C, and has a seal imprint of D, and the relationship between the Defendant and C, etc., the Defendant may recognize the fact that C conspired with C, knowing that C had a seal imprint of D and a driver’s license stolen, forged the power of proxy for the certificate of the seal imprint of this case. However, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. On June 27, 2011, the summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) the Defendant conspired with C to obtain D’s certificate of seal imprint using D’s certificate of seal imprint and a driver’s license; (b) forged D’s certificate of seal imprint under the name of D, a private document related to rights and obligations; (c) issued a forged certificate of seal imprint to the employees of the above Myeon Office as if they were duly constituted a forged certificate of seal imprint; (d) the lower court and the lower court held that: (a) the Defendant prepared the power of proxy in this case to obtain D’s certificate of seal imprint to provide the instant real estate as security for one’s own business; (b) the Defendant owned the instant real estate under the name of D; or (c) the Defendant stated that C did not have known the Defendant of the theft of D’s certificate of seal imprint and the Plaintiff’s certificate of seal imprint; and (iv) it is difficult to deem that C had legitimate power of representation without reasonable doubt.
The judgment below
In light of the content of the lower court’s duly admitted evidence, the lower court’s aforementioned determination was clearly erroneous.