A. Summary of grounds for appeal by the defendant

(1) Points of mistake of facts

(A) The point of accusation

In collusion with Nonindicted 2 and 6, Nonindicted 1 forced the Defendant to prepare a written statement in collusion with Nonindicted 2 and 6, and forced the Defendant to take the cash card and handphones in the account of ○○ cafeteria cafeteria cafeteria dedicated to the fact that Nonindicted 1 forced the Defendant to take the cash card and handphones. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant did not have taken Nonindicted 1,

(B) the forgery of private documents and the point of such events

Since the Defendant, in accordance with the intention of Nonindicted 4, prepared a report on discontinuance of business with prior comprehensive or presumed consent, the Defendant is not guilty of forging private documents and uttering of private investigation documents.

(2) The point of unfair sentencing

Considering the fact that the defendant reflects his mistake in depth and that the mother of the defendant supports two children, the sentence of the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Summary of prosecutor's grounds for appeal

Nonindicted 5 borrowed money from Nonindicted 4 to use the Defendant’s restaurant operation, and according to Nonindicted 5’s statement, it is recognized that the Defendant borrowed money from the victim through Nonindicted 5. Accordingly, the Defendant, in collusion with Nonindicted 5, can be recognized that the Defendant acquired money by deceiving the victim by hiding the operation status of the restaurant and the excess status of debts, in collusion with Nonindicted 5.

2. Determination

A. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

(1) Points of mistake of facts

(A) The point of accusation

The following circumstances acknowledged by the record, i.e., the defendant: (a) made several conversations with the defendant, Nonindicted Party 1 and Nonindicted Party 2 while in the operation of Nonindicted Party 1; (b) it is difficult to see that the defendant was subject to violence or intimidation from Nonindicted Party 1 and Nonindicted Party 2 or detained in an strong atmosphere; and (c) the defendant received text messages from Nonindicted Party 3 on two occasions at the hospital. However, according to the result of the call of the investigative agency, it is not acknowledged that the defendant made a written statement within the hospital, but it is difficult to believe that the defendant was forced by Nonindicted Party 1, etc.; (c) the defendant received property by taking advantage of the defendant's statement, such as taking advantage of the fact that it was difficult for the defendant to take advantage of the fact that there was no clear fact that the above written statement was made; and (d) the defendant received money from Nonindicted Party 1, a cash card related to the sale of the restaurant located, and received money from Nonindicted Party 2, etc. for the purpose of contact with the defendant 1 and 300.

(B) Forgery of private documents and the uttering of a falsified private document

As long as the Defendant voluntarily prepares a report on discontinuance of business without the permission of Nonindicted 4 at the time of preparing the report on discontinuance of business by Nonindicted 4, the crime of forging private documents and the crime of uttering of the above investigation document was established, and Nonindicted 4 demanded Nonindicted 5, etc. to dispose of the restaurant to collect the loan used for the operation fund of the restaurant and request the Nonindicted 5, etc. to change the restaurant. Thus, it cannot be deemed that Nonindicted 4 impliedly consented to the preparation of the report on discontinuance of business, and it cannot be deemed that Nonindicted 4 permitted to substitute for the discontinuance of business at the time of granting the initial permission on discontinuance of business registration. Therefore, this part of

(2) The point of unfair sentencing

In light of the following circumstances: (a) the instant crime was committed by the Defendant without the victims; (b) the Defendant forged another person’s private document or altered an official document and subsequently used it; (c) the Defendant denies this part of the facts charged without any reflective reflection even if the facts constituting the crime were sufficiently recognized; (d) the victims were arrested due to the Defendant’s complaint and applied for detention warrant; (c) the Defendant committed the instant crime despite being sentenced to suspended sentence due to the same kind of crime; and (d) the Defendant committed the instant crime even if having been sentenced to suspended sentence due to the same crime; and (e) other circumstances on which the sentencing conditions indicated in the records of the instant case are the sentencing, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family relationship, family environment, motive and means of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is deemed reasonable and it cannot be deemed unreasonable. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

B. Determination of the Prosecutor’s argument

(1) Summary of this part of the facts charged and the judgment of the court below

(A) Summary of the facts charged

The Defendant: (a) around October 207, at the time of the shortage of funds to Nonindicted 5; (b) around 10, the Defendant asked Nonindicted 1 to pay the money from another person; (c) around 70, 10,000 won, and accepted it; (d) around November 2, 2007, Nonindicted 5 trusted Nonindicted 7, one’s own mother-child store in Seoul, Jung-gu, ○○○○ (hereinafter omitted); and (d) tried to operate the same business as 40 if the Defendant borrowed money from Nonindicted 40, 70,000 won under the name of 50,000 won; and (d) the Defendant was 10,000 won and 40,000 won and 70,000 won and 70,000 won and 40,000 won and 70,000 won and 60,000 won and 7,00 won and 6,000 won and 7,00 won,0,00 won and more.

(B) The judgment of the court below

As shown in this part of the facts charged, there are statements in the investigation agency of Nonindicted 4 and in this court and in the investigation agency of Nonindicted 5.

However, according to these evidence, the defendant provided that he would pay interest on the bonds to friendly non-indicted 5, and the non-indicted 5 refused to provide the loan to the non-indicted 4 by requesting the other party for the payment of the loan, and then asked the defendant to obtain the above loan by requesting the non-indicted 4. Non-indicted 4 to provide the above loan. Non-indicted 5's mother was well aware of the loan with the non-indicted 7's mother in operating the restaurant, and Non-indicted 5 provided several monetary transactions with the non-indicted 7. When the defendant borrowed the loan due to the shortage of the fund in operating the restaurant with the defendant, the defendant would be responsible for the principal and interest, and he would pay the loan in 120,000 won per month, but the defendant would not be able to receive the above loan from the non-indicted 5's non-indicted 7 with his own opinion, and the defendant would not have been able to accept the above loan from the non-indicted 4's own opinion to the above non-indicted 7's church.

Therefore, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant conspiredd with Nonindicted 5 to induce Nonindicted 4 solely on the ground that Nonindicted 5, who received a shortage of business funds from the Defendant on his own judgment, caused Nonindicted 4 to obtain a loan by using the friendly relationship with his mother, as seen above. In addition, there is no evidence to support that the Defendant, either directly or in collusion with Nonindicted 5, was deceiving Nonindicted 4, and this part of the facts charged is not guilty on the ground that there is no proof of crime

(2) Judgment of the court below

In light of the records, a thorough examination of the evidence of this case reveals that the court below's disposition that found this part of the facts charged not guilty on the basis of the above determination of evidence is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts as pointed out by the prosecutor in the judgment of the court below. Thus, the prosecutor'

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since all appeals filed by the defendant and the prosecutor are without merit, they are dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)