beta
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, despite the fact that the defendant voluntarily prepared a written complaint under the name of E without consent of E and recognized the forged facts, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of the facts charged
2. Summary of the facts charged
A. On December 20, 201, the Defendant forged private documents at the office of the Attorney-at-Law of 505, Seocho-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government C. C. 505, and without authority, using the computer for the purpose of exercising the right, stated “E”, “F”, “H”, “I”, “I”, “I”, “I”, and “I”, and “I” in the column of the purport of the complaint in the column of “I”, “I will be punished by the Busan District Public Prosecutor’s Branch Office of Incheon District Public Prosecutor’s Office (T.S.) and then I will be punished by the Defendant at his own discretion on the ground of the complaint,” and “I would have the right to seek a strict punishment against the Defendant who was bound by his factory (T.S.)”, “The date on which the Defendant’s complaint was drawn up and printed back “I”, “I will have his own name on January 2, 201,” and “I will have the name of each E.S.
Accordingly, for the purpose of uttering, the Defendant forged a letter of complaint in the name of E, a private document on rights and obligations.
B. On December 21, 201, at the post office located in the Seoul Central District Court (Seoul Central District Court) around 13:09 on December 21, 201, the Defendant: (a) sent a registration to the Deputy Branch Office of the Incheon District Prosecutors’ Office as if the document was duly formed; and (b) exercised the said investigation document by allowing K to receive the document from the general secretary of the Deputy Branch Office and the public official in charge of receipt of the document, who may know of the fact, at around 10:40 of the same month.
3. The lower court determined: (1) The Defendant, the Director General of the Attorney-at-law Office, was met to recover the investment funds from H; and (2) the Defendant’s contents and their own accord with the accusation prepared by the Defendant.