(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2015.10.22 2015노849

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2015.10.22 2015노849

위조사문서행사

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Do, a parent of the Defendant’s mistake of facts, ratified a title trust agreement with the Defendant on the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Land C (hereinafter “instant real estate”). Since the intention of D is also included in the intent of the title truster to cooperate with the Defendant’s application for provisional attachment to recover title trust real estate, it shall be deemed that there was a comprehensive implied consent on the preparation, etc. of a loan certificate as a means to clarify the preserved claim necessary for the application for provisional attachment.

Therefore, the Defendant, with D’s comprehensive and implied consent, prepared a loan certificate on December 23, 2006 in the name of D (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”) with D’s comprehensive and implied consent, but the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged as to the use of the above investigation document on the premise that the loan certificate of this case was forged. Thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The court below's decision on the unfair sentencing is too unreasonable to impose a fine of one million won on the defendant.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. Even if a title trust agreement on the instant real estate was established between the Defendant and D with respect to the mistake of facts, it cannot be deemed that D consented to the Defendant to prepare the instant loan certificate (or, however, it was given warning to the Defendant that the act of preparing the instant loan certificate constitutes a private document by means of the content certification on July 31, 2008). There is no evidence to regard D as having given explicit or implied consent to the Defendant regarding the preparation of the instant loan certificate. Thus, the instant loan certificate prepared by the Defendant constitutes a forged private document without any authority, and submitted it to the court as evidence for the application of provisional seizure constitutes the use of the said private document.

B. The Defendant’s determination on the assertion of unfair sentencing is the age of 81 years.

유사 판례

-부산고등법원 2015.04.02 2014나52933

-서울동부지방법원 2013.06.19 2012가합10056

-대법원 2010. 5. 13. 선고 2010도1040 판결

-광주지방법원 2015.10.22 2015노37

-수원지방법원 2015.02.12 2013고합875