The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

According to the Supreme Court's decision on the gist of the prosecutor's appeal, it is clear that the defendant's arbitrary entry of the contents contained in the computer file does not constitute a crime of forging a private document, but according to the above precedents, there is a gap in punishment, but the defendant living together knew that the defendant would receive a loan by using the transaction details of this case, so the above transaction details would have been finally printed out in the document form, and the defendant could be evaluated as having committed a crime of forging a private document in the indirect form as a principal offender, since the defendant used a lending company with no intention to use the transaction details of this case, and the defendant could be evaluated as having committed a crime of forging a private document in the indirect form of a principal offender. Thus, the court below acquitted the defendant of the charge of this case, which is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

Judgment

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case was expressed by the Defendant to forge a financial transaction statement with the intent of forging the financial transaction details necessary for receiving a loan from “C”, which was known through the Internet Messenger.

On July 13, 2015, the Defendant stated “E”, “F”, “F”, “2,868,990 won”, and “2,868,990 won” in the current balance column, and entered 30 financial transaction details from June 3, 2015 to July 11, 2015, including: (a) No. 189,000 from July 11, 2015.

Accordingly, for the purpose of uttering, the Defendant forged a letter of trading F in the name of the Saemaul Treasury, which is a private document on rights and obligations.

B. The term “documents” in the crime concerning documents under the relevant legal doctrine is written or written under the Criminal Act.