The limit of the amount agreed upon by the parties in the face value column of a promissory note shall be the issuance of a new promissory note using a form with a signature and seal affixed on the basis of the scope of the blank supplement, which constitutes the crime of forging securities.

The limit of the amount agreed upon by the person in the face value of a promissory note shall be the issuance of a new commitment margin using a form of a promissory note on which the scope of the right to fill the blank shall be initial and signed and sealed, and so-called so-called the so-called crime of forging valuable rights.

Article 214 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Busan District Court Decision 71No2373 delivered on February 25, 1972, Busan District Court Decision 71No2373 delivered on February 25, 1972

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The part which was pronounced not guilty on the defendant among the original judgment shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Busan District Court Panel Division.

First, the defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.

In light of the records, it is argued that the court below's decision was followed by detailed examination of the records and the evidence (the partial change of the evidence relationship in the judgment of the court of first instance and the cited part of the facts stated in the judgment) adopted by the original judgment was in violation of the public law as stated in its decision, and that there was a lawsuit seeking to recognize the defendant's violation of the law of law (the acceptance of part of the facts stated in the judgment of the court of first instance 2 and 3). In addition, it is not recognized that there was a violation of the rules of evidence or a misunderstanding of the legal principles on anti-public law as to the violation of the rules of evidence or anti-public law, and therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Next, the prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

As to the facts charged as to the defendant of this case on the securities article of the public prosecutor (the facts charged in the case No. 1003 proviso), the original judgment stated in the facts charged that the defendant had obtained the delivery of a non-indicted 1's guaranteed obligation to the defendant of the non-indicted 2 at the office of the limited partnership company (name of the company omitted) operated by him in July 1969, that the non-indicted 2 secured the repayment of the principal and interest of the non-indicted 1's guaranteed obligation, and that it was against the issuer's bill bill's bill bill's bill's bill's bill's bill's bill's bill's bill's bill's bill's bill's bill's bill's bill's bill's bill's bill's bill's bill's bill's bill's bill's bill's bill's bill's bill's bill's bill's bill's bill's bill's bill's bill's bill's bill's bill's bill's bill's bill's bill's bill's bill's bill's bill's bill's bill's bill's bill's bill.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition in accordance with the consistent opinion of all participating judges.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Ma-dong (Presiding Judge) and Ma-dong B-Jed Han-gu