beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.08.11 2017노74

사문서위조등

Text

Defendant

All appeals filed by B, C, and Prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to Defendant B and C’s forgery of private documents, and the event of the above investigation documents, Defendant B and C’s mother consented that Defendant A’s provision of P multi-household P and multi-household housing 202 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) in Sungnam-gu, Sungnam-si as security. Even if so, Defendant A’s mother did not so.

Even if Defendant B and C (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant B, etc.”) are referred to as “Defendant B,” “victim,” or “Defendant B,” or “Defendant B,” under the name of Defendant B, etc., without omitting the name when they are re-known within the scope of the same paragraph or C, within the scope of the same paragraph or C.

This mother did not know that her mother was unable to obtain consent from her mother.

B) It is not true that a victim of Defendant C’s act of exercising the above investigation document and fraud with Defendant C did not lend money to Defendant C by reporting the lease agreement under the name of the Defendant, and at the time, the Defendant had the ability to repay.

2) The lower court’s sentence on the illegal Defendant B, etc. is too heavy.

B. Prosecutor 1) The contents of the victim’s statement related to Defendant B, etc.’s exercise of the above investigation document and fraud regarding Defendant B, etc. are somewhat different from the investigation agency and the court. However, in view of the whole, the lower court rejected it and rendered a not-guilty verdict, thereby causing a mistake of fact.

B) Even though the victim stated to the effect that Defendant C’s fraud against the victim J was consistent from the investigative agency to the court of the court below, that “the Defendant agreed to pay the construction cost immediately after the completion of the construction work,” the lower court erred by misapprehending that the Defendant did not have any criminal intent by deceiving the Defendant on the ground of an uncertain interest that the Defendant would have obtained by operating the skin center later.

C) The exercise of the above investigation document against Defendant B’s victim H, and the fraud.