The judgment contains no error by stating the withdrawn name of the crime, such as the indication of the name of the crime at the time of prosecution.

In the written judgment, it is not erroneous that the name of the first crime at the time of prosecution and the withdrawn name of the crime have been indicated.

Article 323 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant

Supreme Court Decision 70No30 delivered on October 26, 1970, such as the Ministry of National Defense Assistants, the Second Instance of the Ministry of National Defense, etc.

The appeal is dismissed.

Defendant’s appeal is examined as grounds for appeal.

According to the records, the defendant first instance court's decision that maintained the judgment of the first instance court against the rules of evidence, and that the defendant prepared a false public document as to the facts of the first instance court's decision (2) in accordance with the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance court, and the defendant prepared a false public document, and the defendant prepared a false public document by the name of his/her commercial company. The defendant did not prepare a false public document and the public document by his/her own official document, and the defendant did not prepare a false document in his/her own name, and the document that stated that the public document was withdrawn and the document was prepared in his/her name at the time of the first instance court's decision. However, according to the records, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence at the first instance court's decision that maintained the judgment of the first instance court.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Park Jae-dong (Presiding Judge)