beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.
Reasons
1. Summary of the grounds for appeal;
A. Legal principles 1) In full view of the objective circumstances at the time when the defendant alters each labor contract in the name of E, it is presumed that E has consented to the alteration of the content of the labor contract. Thus, the illegality of the defendant's act is denied. 2) The other party to the crime of uttering of a private document should be a person who is not aware of the alteration. Since E can be aware of the fact of the alteration immediately after he received a labor contract from the defendant, it cannot be the other party to the
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. 1) Determination of the misapprehension of the legal principle as to the assertion that E’s consent is presumed, the lower court also made the same assertion as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the lower court rejected the above Defendant’s assertion on the grounds as stated in its reasoning. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in comparison with the relevant legal principles and the evidence, the lower court’s rejection of the above assertion is justified, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles, nor did it adversely affect the conclusion of the judgment. 2) As for the assertion that E is not the other party to the crime of uttering of a forged document, the exercise of a forged document refers to an act that is likely to impair the public credit in the document by using the forged document as genuine, and thus, the other party to the event is not restricted and cannot be the
(1) In light of the above legal principles, the Defendant’s act of delivering a copy of the labor contract altered to E, a title holder of the labor contract, by taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 204Do4663, Jan. 28, 2005).