logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.06.10 2015노7008
사문서변조
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the representative director of D, which is alleged to be erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, is changed, the investment agreement with D, Jeonnam-do, and Jeonju-si is equally effective. Thus, the former representative director D, Jeonnam-do, and Jeonju-si did not have the real consent. However, if the above nominal holders received a request for change of name, it is presumed that the above investment agreement has been valid.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Even if the facts charged in the instant case are found guilty, the sentence imposed by the lower court (2 million won) on the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The crime of forgery or alteration of a private document in a judgment of misapprehension of the legal doctrine refers to the preparation of a document by a person who is not authorized to prepare the document in the name of another person. Therefore, if the nominal owner explicitly or implicitly consented in preparing or amending the private document, it does not constitute the crime of forgery or alteration of the private document. Meanwhile, even if the nominal owner did not have the real consent at the time of the act, if the nominal owner knew of the fact at the time of the act by taking into account all objective circumstances at the time of the act, it is presumed that the nominal owner would have naturally accepted the document

However, it cannot be readily concluded that a person who is aware of the nominal owner’s explicit consent or consent is presumed to have consented if he/she knew of the fact in writing (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do14587, Sept. 29, 201). According to the record, it was impossible to obtain a real consent from D, Jeonnam-do, and Naju-si at the time of changing the name of D in the instant investment agreement.

There are no circumstances to see, and the contents of the investment agreement.

arrow