logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2018.12.10 2018노839
사문서위조등
Text

Defendant

All appeals filed by the Prosecutor B and C and the Defendant A by the Prosecutor are dismissed.

The judgment of the court below is against the law.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant B (1) The lower court convicted Defendant B of this part of the facts charged on this part by misapprehending the legal doctrine, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

A) At the time, the Defendant had no choice but to think that C was qualified as the president of the branch of the D Yangyang-si Branch. Therefore, there was an intention to forge or use the instant document to the Defendant.

shall not be deemed to exist.

In addition, the defendant is merely a doping upon the request of C to prepare the documents of this case, and the preparing body of the above documents should be deemed to be C, not the defendant.

B) In order to show the victim out of the office, the Defendant merely danced the victim’s hand on the part of the victim, etc., and exercised a tangible power to evaluate the victim as assault.

shall not be deemed to exist.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (an amount of KRW 1.5 million) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant C1) The misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are only the victim’s dubage, and the Defendant did not have any dubage, and the Defendant’s act of carrying the victim’s dubage constitutes a justifiable act that does not contravene social norms.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, which erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence that the lower court rendered unfair sentencing (an amount of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

(c)

In light of the public prosecutor’s statements (misunderstanding of facts against Defendant A) and investigation agency’s statements, etc., the Defendant conspiredd to prepare and exercise the documents of this case with B and B.

Although it can be sufficiently recognized, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant, is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination of the misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by Defendant B and C.

arrow