본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
청주지방법원 2016.10.06 2016노475

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.


1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant’s statement of the meeting of the E-credit Union’s regular board of directors on March 11, 200 (hereinafter “instant document”) concerning “The Bill 3: other cases” (hereinafter “instant document”) in the part in which the Defendant stated the meeting’s “(i.e., (ii) the Rules of Honorary Retirement Allowances for the Regulations of the Association”)” (hereinafter “instant provisional document”).

However, the time when the defendant entered the above is not around September 25, 2013, but around March 200, when the document of this case was prepared and opened, as stated in the facts charged of this case.

In addition, the Defendant, as a working-level person of the instant union at the time of mid- March 200, was required to take such measures as above, depending on the need of his duties.

Therefore, the defendant has no intention to alter or exercise private documents, and even if the intention is recognized, the statute of limitations has been imposed, so the crime of altering private documents should be acquitted.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found all of the facts charged of this case guilty is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court may recognize the fact that the Defendant was obligated to receive a voluntary retirement payment from the instant association on September 25, 2013, as indicated in the instant facts charged, with the purpose of receiving a voluntary retirement payment from the instant association.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that found all of the charges of this case guilty is just, and there is no error of mistake of facts as alleged by the defendant.

Defendant’s assertion is without merit. A.

In order to receive his voluntary retirement, the Defendant did not do so on the same date as indicated in the facts charged of this case, but did not make the instant document as a working-level officer for the board of directors after March 11, 200.