The case that reversed the court below's decision because it was erroneous in the incomplete hearing or misconception of facts against the rules of evidence.

The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the grounds that the court below erred by misapprehending the value of the examination or evidence and violating the rules of evidence.

Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Choi Mon-con

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 86No6931 delivered on February 20, 1987

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Criminal Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

With respect to No. 1:

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below and the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below, the court below acknowledged that the defendant was appointed as a liquidator at the general meeting that dissolves the old Association, appointed the president of the new association established following the amendment of the Road Transport Vehicles Act, and then, ordered the non-indicted 1 as a managing director through the overall affairs of the new association, thereby forging a copy of the minutes of the general meeting of members of the old Association members in the name of Kim Jin-jin and Lee Jong-hwan and a copy of

However, in light of the records and records, the first instance court acknowledged that the defendant applied for the registration of change of the representative of the old association before the judicial police officer's duties are handled or prosecutor, and until the court below held the court below. However, there is no consistent fact that the defendant issued an order to forge the documents. The above statements before the senior judicial police officer's duty handling order of the representative of the old association and the defendant's testimony before the senior judicial police officer's duty handling order of the first instance court, or the statements before the senior judicial police officer's duty handling of Kim Jin-jin may be acknowledged as being made without the defendant's intention of preparing the above documents, but there is no evidence to acknowledge that the above documents were made without the defendant's intention of preparing the documents. The defendant's statement at the senior judicial police officer of the new association or prosecutor's duty handling of the senior executive officer of the new association, and testimony at the court of first instance and the above testimony at the court of first instance does not constitute evidence to acknowledge that the defendant ordered the forgery of the above documents.

Furthermore, as the investigation records contain a written statement about leap light, the above person received instructions from the defendant, the fact that he received instructions from the defendant is denied, and there is no investigation by the court below on the attorney-at-law or its clerk who prepared the above registration application for change or its clerk.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of the value of evidence or by misunderstanding the facts against the rules of evidence, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices

Justices Ansan-man (Presiding Justice)