beta
Text
The judgment below
False entry, such as the forgery of a private document, the event of a documentary investigation, and the official electronic records.
Reasons
1. According to the statements of the complainant D and G, which are consistent with each of the facts charged in this case, the defendant's right to register the creation of the right to collateral security held by the complainants, may be stolen, and the fact that the defendant forged the certificate of termination of the right to collateral security under the name of the complainants and uses it for the application for cancellation of registration of the right to collateral security. However, the court below acquitted each of the facts charged in this case, which affected the conclusion
2. On the grounds stated in its reasoning, the lower court, based on its reasoning, is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant, as stated in the facts charged, visited the Appellant’s house on February 2015, on the sole basis, including the complainant and G’s statement, etc., on the charge of larceny, had a certificate of right to register the creation of a right to collateral security kept in custody in an inner wall, and committed theft.
In light of the foregoing, the Court acquitted the Defendant.
As stated in the reasoning of the court below that the complainant and G's statement consistent with this part of the facts charged would bring about a certificate of right to register the creation of a right to collateral security, which the defendant had been kept in custody on the inside door A, is insufficient to be viewed as evidence to find guilty of this part of the facts charged, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. Thus, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law by mistake of facts as claimed by the prosecutor.
Therefore, this part of the prosecutor's argument is without merit.
3. Determination as to the event, such as forgery of a private document, the event of a private document, and an electronic record, etc., false entry, and an electronic record of a false entry
A. The lower court’s judgment: (a) the following circumstances; (b) G, a representative of the complainant around February to March 2015; and (c) G, a defendant’s agent, and KRW 30 million borrowed from the complainant.