logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2013.06.05 2013노185
사문서위조등
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the gist of the grounds for appeal, the defendant can be found to have forged the part of the joint and several surety of the loan certificate as stated in the facts charged (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”) without consent of D, and even if at the time D had the intent to stand

Even if there is no actual consent, it would not affect the establishment of the crime of forging private documents.

Nevertheless, since the court below acquitted the defendant as to the facts charged of this case, it erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The Defendant’s defense counsel changed the instant loan certificate with D’s consent at the seat of D.

3. The facts charged in this case and the judgment of the court below

A. (1) On December 20, 2007, the Defendant forged a copy of the loan under the name of D, a private document related to rights and obligations by putting the number out on the part of “intest” of the debtor C and the witness D’s “intest” and signing D’s signature with the intent to exercise the right, using a verification-type pen without authority.

(B) On October 22, 2007, the Defendant, without authority, forged a loan certificate in the name of D, which is a private document concerning rights and obligations by putting the number on the part of the “member” of the loan certificate signed by D and recorded as D and signed by D with the debtor C and the witness D with the intent to exercise the right.

(C) On October 29, 2007, the Defendant, without authority, forged a loan certificate in the name of D, which is a private document concerning rights and obligations by putting the number on the part of the “member” of the loan certificate written in D and signed by D and recorded in D as the debtor E and the witness D without authority for the purpose of exercising the right.

(D) On October 30, 2007, the Defendant is entitled to exercise the right at the place of Buddhist land around October 30, 207.

arrow