beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of the prosecutor's grounds for appeal;
A. Although the defendant was permitted to use the agricultural cooperative account in the name of the complainant, it cannot be deemed that he voluntarily withdrawn and used the money transferred from another account of the complainant to the above agricultural cooperative account in the name of the complainant. Thus, the defendant's act of preparing and exercising a written claim for the payment under the name of the complainant constitutes the crime of forging private documents and the crime of uttering of the same, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant, despite the fact that it constitutes the crime of forging private documents and the crime of uttering of the same.
B. The lower court’s sentence (three million won of fine) against the Defendant claiming unreasonable sentencing is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. (1) On January 27, 2012, the Defendant forged a letter of claim for payment, which is a private document on C’s rights and obligations, by means of a pen, written on the paper of the written request for payment kept to withdraw the deposit deposited in the passbook (F) in the name of the said bank at the Busan Busan District Law Center located in the Busan District District District of Busan District, Busan District, Busan District Court on January 27, 2012, with C’s consent, and written “F,00,000” in the face value column, “F,00” in the face value column, “F,00,000” in the date column, and “C” in the name column, and then forged a letter of claim for payment, which is a private document on C’s rights and obligations, by affixing the personal seal impression of the Defendant already registered next to the name.
(B) A statement of request for payment drawn up at a time and place such as the foregoing subsection (a) was submitted to a bank employee with no knowledge of the name.
(2) The lower court determined based on the results of the examination of evidence, that the agricultural bank account of this case is named C, but in fact, it is the account managed by the Defendant and the deposit transaction was also used, and C was also aware of the fact, and thereby, C comprehensively delegated the above transaction to the Defendant.