beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant had consistently exercised the following day after the date of forgery of the instant lease agreement.
The judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant as to the exercise of the above-mentioned documents among the facts charged in this case by judging that the confession of the defendant was not reliable.
B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (2.5 million won in penalty) is too unhued and unfair.
2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal, the prosecutor examined ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for the appeal of this case, and at the trial of the first instance court, the prosecutor applied for the amendment of the indictment with respect to “a forged real estate lease agreement” in Article 2 of the facts charged, “The defendant applied for the amendment of the indictment with respect to the term “a forged real estate lease agreement, as above, around April 2010,” which is the date and time indicated in paragraph (1). The identity of the facts charged shall be determined individually on the basis of the relevant facts in light of the basic social facts, which serve as the basis for the relevant facts, and where the date and time difference between the first facts charged and the modified facts charged, the two facts charged can be compatible in light of the nature of the case.
In light of the circumstances, there is a risk of different social facts, which is the basis thereof, so the basic fact cannot be deemed to be the same. However, in a case where there is a close relationship between the two parties to the extent that the establishment of the other party cannot be recognized when the crime is established, the basic facts of the two parties are the same (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1048, May 10, 2007). In this case, the prosecutor changed the date and time of the crime in the facts charged as to the crime of conducting documents at the fourth trial date from "Skman on the first trial of June 2009" to " around April 2010."