beta
Text
The judgment below
The part of the case against Defendant A and C shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be Gangnam branch court of the Chuncheon District Court.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).
1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment regarding Defendant A’s grounds for appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court was justifiable to have found Defendant A guilty of fraud among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds indicated in its reasoning. In so doing, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on
2. Defendant B appealed against the judgment of the court below regarding Defendant B’s appeal, but did not submit a statement of reason for appeal, and the petition of appeal did not contain any statement of reason for objection.
3. Judgment on the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor
A. Article 228(1) of the Criminal Act provides that the crime of re-performance of the original copy of a process deed or the crime of re-performance of the original copy of a process deed (hereinafter referred to as “the crime of re-performance of the original copy of a process deed”) is a crime that legally protects the protection of public confidence in an official document with special credibility, and is established by filing a false report with a public official against the truth and recording or recording false facts inconsistent with the special media records, such as the original copy of a process deed or the same electronic records.
Therefore, if a registration of creation of a false collective security is completed under the pretext of pretending a false debt and securing it even without any bonds and debt relationship, it constitutes a crime of causing a registry official to make a false report and enter false facts in the register (see Supreme Court Decisions 69Do1804, Nov. 11, 1969; 69Do1804, Sept. 11, 2008).