beta
Text
The judgment below
Among them, the part against Defendant A is reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.
Defendant
B, C, and D.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A (1) The misunderstanding of the facts did not constitute the crime of forging an official document or forging a private document.
(2) The sentence of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. Defendant B, C, and D’s sentence (Defendant B: Imprisonment with prison labor for 1 year and 6 months, Defendant C: Imprisonment for 1 year and 2 months, and Defendant D: Imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months) is too unreasonable.
(c)
The Prosecutor’s sentence against the Defendants by the lower court is too uneasible and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. In the case of co-offenders who process two or more defendants' arguments of mistake of facts in the crime, the conspiracy does not require any legal punishment, but is only a combination of intent to realize the crime by combining two or more persons and jointly processing the crime. Although there is no overall conspiracy, if the combination of intentions is formed in order or secretly through several persons, even if there is no process of the whole conspiracy, the conspiracy relation is established (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do9721, Dec. 22, 201). According to the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below, the defendant Gap was well aware that he was aware that he was guilty of the crime by forging a resident registration certificate, a charter contract, etc. in preparation for the crime with the rest of the defendants, and according to the above facts, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant Gap committed some acts of forging documents by forging documents by signing as a direct tenant, and according to the above facts, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant Gap conspired with the rest of the defendants.
B. (1) Determination of the Defendants and the Prosecutor’s unfair assertion of sentencing (1) With respect to Defendant A’s failure to commit a crime on August 11, 2009, except for those subject to a fine of one million won due to fraud, etc., there is no previous criminal conviction, the degree of participation in the crime is equal to that of Defendant B and C, and the husband’s business failure is economical.