beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
B shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.
Defendant
B does not pay the above fine.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles as stated in the facts charged in the instant case, Defendant A, regardless of the intention of I and J, has prepared an application for extension of the cancellation of permission for development activities in his name to restore to the original state, but this corresponds to the interests of I and J, and thus constitutes a justifiable act that does not violate the social rules. Nevertheless, the lower court’s judgment convicting the above Defendant, which was erroneous in misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, is unreasonable.
B. Defendant B (A) misunderstanding of facts) At the time of the instant crime, when the commission of forgery of a private document and the uttering of a private document were requested by I and J to cancel the permission, and the restoration order was also possible. Defendant B was bound to apply for extension of restoration to its original state as it was difficult to restore to its original state due to the imminent occurrence of the time of the instant crime. Defendant B, as a matter of course, thought that I and J naturally agreed to the restoration to its original state.
In other words, even though the above defendant did not have any intention to commit the crime under the above Article, the court below found the defendant guilty as to the forgery of private documents and the uttering of private documents.
B) The revocation of the instant development permit and the disposition of reinstatement order in violation of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act should be made to the father G of the Defendants, and the Defendant B, who served as a certain part of the development permit application and the development activity on behalf of G, cannot be deemed as the person subject to the disposition of permission for development activities. Furthermore, the above Defendant cannot be deemed as the successor to the order of cancellation of permission and the order of restitution. Nevertheless, the lower court, which found the Defendant guilty of the violation of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, erred by misapprehending the fact of unfair sentencing.