(영문) 부산지방법원 2009.6.25.선고 2009노502 판결

Of the judgment of the court below, the part concerning the crime No. 3 in the judgment of the court below shall be reversed. Of the facts charged in this case, the charge of forging private documents and uttering of falsified

The defendant's appeal against the first and second crimes in the judgment of the court below is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts (as to the forgery of private documents and the uttering of falsified Investigation Documents)

Although the Defendant did not forge the minutes of the board of directors’ meeting of this case, and only submitted them to police officers with the minutes lawfully prepared by the company, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the lower court convicted the Defendant of forging private documents and uttering private investigation documents, and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentencing of the lower court (as to the crime Nos. 1 and 2 as indicated in the original judgment: 6 months of imprisonment and 4 months of imprisonment) is excessively unreasonable, considering the following: (a) an unreasonable sentencing sentence (as to the crime committed in the original judgment: 6 months of imprisonment and 3 months of imprisonment) is making efforts to reach an agreement with the instant defrauded company; (b) the Defendant has divided his mistake with respect to the fraud crime; and (c) the Defendant is suffering from illness, such as urology and high blood pressure; and (d) the Defendant has difficulty in living under confinement in the detention house.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of fact

(1) Summary of the facts charged concerning the fabrication of private documents and the uttering of private documents

피고인은 2007년 내지 2008년 일자 불상 경 불상의 장소에서 행사할 목적으로 이사회 회의록에 '주식회사 ■■건설, 일시 2007년 3월 19일 14:00, 장소 : 당사 사무실, 안건 : 시공사 변경의 건'이라고 적는 등 회의록을 작성하고 회의록 말미에 대표이사 B 등 4명의 이름을 기재한 후 그들의 인장을 날인하는 등 권리의무에 관한 사문서인 주식회사 ■■건설 이사회 회의록 1매를 위조하였고, 2008.4.17. 부산 북구 북부경찰서에서 경찰서 D1 경사에게 마치 진정하게 성립된 문서인 것처럼 제출하여 이를 행사하였다.

(2) The judgment of the court below

The court below found guilty of the above part of the facts charged in accordance with each of the evidence in its judgment.

(3) Judgment of the court below

위 부분 공소사실에 부합하는 듯한 증거로는 사법경찰관 작성의 D2에 대한 진술조서, 사법경찰리 작성의 D3에 대한 진술조서, 이사회회의록 등이 있으나, 2007. 2. 28.부터 같은 해 5. 31.까지 대만으로 출국하여 국내에 없었기 때문에 그 기간 중인 2007. 3. 19.에 작성된 이 사건 이사회회의록의 작성경위를 제대로 알 수 없었던 D2의 진술이나 이 사건 이사회회의록이 작성된 후 약 3달이 지난 후인 2007. 6. 12.에야 주식회사 ■■건설에 입사하여 경리를 보기 시작한 D3의 진술 및 이사회회의록의 존재만으로는 피고인이 이 사건 이사회회의록을 위조하였고, 위조한 이사회회의록을 행사하였다는 점을 인정하기에는 부족하고, 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없다.

오히려 원심이 적법하게 채택·조사한 증거에 당심 증인 D4, B의 각 증언을 더하여 보면, ① 비록 피고인이 2004. 12. 30.자로 주식회사 ■■건설의 이사직에서 해임되기는 하였으나, 피고인은 이 사건 이사회회의록 작성 당시에도 주식회사 ■■건설의 부회장의 직책을 가지고 있었다고 일관되게 진술하고 있을 뿐만 아니라 실제로 이 사건 이사회회의록에도 부회장이라는 자격으로 피고인의 이름이 기재되어 있는 사실, ② 2006. 4. 17.부터 2007. 4. 23.까지 주식회사 ■■건설의 대표이사로 재직하였던 B는 자신이 대표이사로 취임하기 전부터 피고인은 주식회사 ■■건설의 부회장의 직책을 가지고 활동하면서 각종 공사의 수주 업무 등을 담당해왔다고 진술하고 있는 사실, ③ D4는 피고인이 건설과 주식회사 ■■건설 사이의 공사도급계약의 체결을 주선할 할 당시 주식회사 ■■건설의 실질적 대표자인 회장 D5로부터 그가 피고인에게 위와 같은 계약을 체결할 권한을 부여하였다는 취지의 말을 들었다고 진술한 사실 등을 인정할 수 있고, 위 인정사실에 비추어 보면, 이 사건 이사회회의록 작성 당시 피고인이 이를 작성하거나 그 작성을 지시할 권한이 있었던 것으로 볼 여지가 많다.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of the above part of the facts charged on the grounds as stated in its holding. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts as to

B. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing

In light of the various sentencing conditions indicated in the records of this case, including the motive and circumstance leading to the crime of this case, the situation before and after the crime of this case, the situation before and after the crime of this case, the defendant's age, character and conduct, family environment, etc., even though considering the circumstances asserted as grounds for appeal, the sentencing of the court below as to the crime of this case of this case of this case of 1 and 2 cannot be deemed unfair because the sentencing of the defendant is too excessive, and thus, the defendant's allegation of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the defendant's appeal concerning the fabrication of private documents and the uttering of private investigation documents among the facts charged in this case is well-grounded, the above part shall be reversed pursuant to Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act and decided again through pleadings. Since the defendant's appeal as to the crimes Nos. 1 and 2 in the judgment of the court below is without merit, the defendant's appeal as to the above part shall be dismissed pursuant to Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition (in this case, although the defendant's appeal as to the crimes No. 1 and 2 in the judgment of the court below issued with the warrant of detention is dismissed, the court below's appeal as to the crimes No. 3 in the judgment of the court below as to which the warrant of detention was issued with each of the above crimes is reversed, and in this case, the number of days of detention after the lawsuit for the benefit of the defendant shall be deemed to be included separately in the number of days of detention before the judgment of the court (see Supreme Court Decision 88Do841, Jul. 2

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the summary of the forgery of private documents and the uttering of private investigation documents is as follows:

(1) The same as the statement, which constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime as seen earlier, and thus, is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.