The judgment below

Of them, the part of innocence and the part of not guilty as to injury shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

1. Summary of prosecutor's grounds for appeal;

A. From the perspective of the fact that: (a) on January 4, 2013, the Defendant forged an application for modification of the said insurance contract on January 4, 2013, among the cases of misunderstanding of facts (with regard to the acquitted portion of the lower judgment), and the use of the forged private document and the perjury on January 4, 2013, the Defendant forged an application for modification of the said insurance contract with Hyundai Marine and Fire Insurance on December 24, 2012; (b) the Defendant continued to possess the official seal used in the application for modification of the insurance contract stated in this part of the facts charged; and (c) the Defendant was of practical benefit in preparing the said application for modification of the said insurance contract, the Defendant may sufficiently recognize that he forged

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) In the instant case, the lower court determined that it was difficult to recognize the Defendant’s intentional injury as an accident where the victim F’s fingers did not suffer from a crepan in the process of opening the door.

However, according to the statements of the victim F and witness, while the victim followed the defendant, the victim took a sound that the defendant complained of the pain after closing the door of the victim's own body, and the victim complained of the pain. It is recognized that the defendant knew of the fact that he had committed an act of not questioning once again.

Therefore, it is sufficient to recognize the intention of injury with respect to at least once again, even if there is an intention of injury to the defendant, regardless of whether the victim's loss or damage has been actually caused by the gap.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Of the judgment of the lower court, the guilty portion of the judgment of the lower court (as to the forgery of private documents and the display of private investigation documents around December 24, 2012, among the cases of 2013 High Court Decision 1152) is unreasonable.