사문서위조등
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is consistent from the investigation stage to the court below's trial, and the contract of this case was forged by the defendant. The original defendant asserted that the date of preparation of the contract of this case was around May 15, 2015, and thus, it is not consistent with the statement. The contract of this case is hard to believe the defendant's statement that it was made at the certified judicial scrivener office due to the bad form. On May 15, 2015, the contract of this case was prepared by the defendant and C, which is the time when the defendant and C sharply conflict with each other in the return lawsuit of gold return, and therefore, C prepared the contract of this case with the purport that "in view of the fact that the defendant would not claim rights to the remaining land and building on the land in the name of the defendant, the remaining land in the name of the defendant and the building on its ground, the court below erred in the misapprehension of the contract of this case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment of the court below."
2. Determination
A. The summary of each of the facts charged in the instant case 1) The Defendant forged C’s agreement on rights and duties with a view to arbitrarily preparing a written contract, stating that “A shall not assert the claim of this right against C’s 2,532 square meters, and 160 square meters, 2,532 square meters, and 160 square meters, and 68 square meters, and 68 square meters, of a manager of a light-structure structure steel board on the ground of the previous Gun, in a place where it is difficult to identify the light place in 2015, at which it is unknown.”
2) The Defendant, on August 27, 2015, submitted the aforementioned forged contract form to a public official whose name is unknown at the Gwangju District Court, as if it were duly formed.