logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1972. 6. 27. 선고 72도937 판결
[유가증권위조,유가증권위조행사,사기][집20(2)형,040]
Main Issues

A court shall conduct a trial and judgment only on the facts specified by the date, place, and method of a crime specified in the indictment.

Summary of Judgment

A court shall examine and determine only the facts specified by the place and method of time specified in the indictment.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 254(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 347 of the Criminal Act

Escopics

Defendant

upper and high-ranking persons

Prosecutor

Judgment of the lower court

Busan District Court Decision 71No1977 delivered on November 5, 1971, Busan District Court Decision 71No1977 delivered on November 5, 1971

Text

The appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

The prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

On June 18, 1970, the court shall deliberate and decide on the facts specified in the indictment only with regard to the specific facts. According to the facts stated in the indictment, "the defendant" means that the victim non-indicted 1 will be paid in lieu of the non-indicted 2's debt amount at the Jung-gu Busan Metropolitan City, Jung-gu, Busan, and then the defendant will deliver the forged promissory note 300,000 won and 200,000 won to the non-indicted 2 who received the forged promissory note 2's debt amount, so it cannot be viewed that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the above facts that the defendant did not acquire the above profits of the non-indicted 2's debt amount or it cannot be viewed that the defendant received the above profits of the non-indicted 3's debt amount under the premise that the defendant did not receive the above profits of the non-indicted 100,000 won under the presumption that the above profits of the defendant's debt amount can not be seen as an acquisition of the above profits of the defendant's debt amount.

Judge Han-dong (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court

arrow