A. When a copy of the instant confirmation document in the name of E, in which C had been filed and pending against the Defendant, was submitted as evidence by the Seoul Northern District Court 2013Da23522, which was the Seoul Northern District Court 2013Da23522, the Defendant was convicted of the Defendant as to the facts charged in the instant case on the ground that C was aware that the instant confirmation document was forged, C was charged as a crime of forging private documents or uttering of an investigative document, and the Defendant did not have any awareness of the falsity or falsity, even though he did not have any intention without intention, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.

B. The sentence (7 million won of fine) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) In light of the spirit of the substantial direct and psychological principle adopted by the Korean Criminal Procedure Act, if there are special circumstances to deem that the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court was clearly erroneous, or if the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance is not deemed significantly unfair in full view of the results of the first instance court’s examination and the results of additional evidence examination conducted until the closing of argument in the appellate court, the appellate court shall respect the determination on the credibility of the statement made by the first instance court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do5313, Jun. 14, 2012). 2) On the basis of the foregoing legal doctrine, the lower court directly adopted and investigated the evidence based on the foregoing, and then, the lower court, like the facts stated in the lower judgment, has forged the instant confirmation by sealing the name of the witness of the first instance court.