Defendant

Prosecutor

Oral interference

Attorney Kim Jong-hwan (Korean)

Daejeon District Court Decision 2007Ma374 Decided December 12, 2007

The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

One day of detention before the pronouncement of the judgment below shall be included in the above sentence.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

The defendant shall be ordered to provide community service for 80 hours.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

Punishments (fines 5,00,000) imposed by the court below are too unfilled and unfair.

2. Determination

The fact that the defendant has no special criminal record, in addition to the previous criminal record, who has been punished by a fine due to the violation of the Road Traffic Act, and the fact that the defendant did not lead the crime of this case can be considered as normal data favorable to the defendant.

However, even though the Defendant is a public official in charge of the business of authorization and permission of a food service establishment in the viewing social welfare and social welfare, the Defendant, despite the fact that the instant entertainment tavern is operated jointly by Nonindicted 1 (the original co-defendant) and Nonindicted 2, and Nonindicted 2 did not agree to the change in the name of an entertainment drinking house, he is aware of the fact that Nonindicted 2 did not confirm Nonindicted 2’s intention at the request of Nonindicted 1, who was in a friendly relationship, and forged or event documents, such as a report on succession to the status of Nonindicted 2’s business operator. In addition, the nature and circumstances of the crime are very serious in that the Defendant committed an illegal act by excluding his position and taking advantage of his status. Moreover, the Defendant merely denies the preparation of documents by proving that the Defendant was likely to commit the instant crime, thereby denying the preparation of documents by the petitioner, and therefore, it does not seem good. Considering the circumstances leading up to the crime, the content and consequence of the crime, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, etc., even if the Defendant’s punishment is too unfair.

3. Conclusion

Since the prosecutor's appeal is well-grounded, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is again decided as follows.

The summary of the facts constituting the crime recognized by this court and the evidence thereof are as shown in each corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, and therefore, they are quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

(a) The occupation of private document assistance: Articles 231 and 30 of the Criminal Act; and

(b) The occupation of uttering of a falsified investigation document: Articles 234, 231, and 30 of the Criminal Act;

1. Commercial competition;

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (Punishments stipulated in the crime of uttering of a falsified Private Document due to the exercise of a report on succession to the status of a business operator with the largest criminal situation among crimes of uttering of each falsified Private Document at the time of sale)

1. Selection of punishment;

Each Imprisonment Selection

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

Article 37 former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Aggravation of Concurrent Punishment for Crimes concerning Uttering of Criminal Documents with the most serious Crimes)

1. Calculation of days of detention;

Article 57 of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Social service order;

Article 62-2 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Probation, etc. Act

Judges Kang Tae-hun (Presiding Judge)