2012Do6522 Fraudulent, negotiable Securities Forgery, or Counterfeited Securities

Han ○

dwelling Gangseo-si

Defendant

Attorney Kim Do-young (Presiding Justice)

○ ○

Dongbcheon-si

Chuncheon District Court Decision 2012No18, 61 (Consolidation) decided May 15, 2012;

77 (Joint Judgment)

August 23, 2012

The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Gangnam Branch Court Panel Division of the Chuncheon District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The summary of each of the facts charged against the Defendant is as follows: on September 17, 2009, the Defendant requested the forgery of a promissory note; on the face value column of the face value of the promissory note, the Defendant offered KRW 3,00,000 to the bearer; on October 9, 2009, the Defendant stated “on October 2009, 200,000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,00,00,000.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined as follows: (a) based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court of first instance, ① the Defendant agreed to deliver a promissory note to this & & in the idea that the obligation would be postponed due to this & demand for payment of the obligation; (b) the Defendant reported daily advertisements with the largest ○○○; and (c) ordered a promissory note with KRW 140,000,000 to the bearer of the face value, which is the amount the Defendant needed at the time when the Defendant was placed on the phone, and then paid KRW 3,00,000 for the receipt of the said promissory note; (b) the Defendant received the promissory note from the person without his name; and (c) the Defendant delivered the said promissory note to this & & & ; and (c) the Defendant did not think that the said promissory note would have been actually paid; and (d) it could be recognized that the said promissory note would have been issued to the person with no knowledge of its face value.

However, such determination by the court below is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

The evidence that there is a criminal fact in the criminal procedure shall be presented by the prosecutor, and even if the defendant's indictment is unreasonable and the defendant's indictment is false, it shall not be disadvantageous for that reason, and the criminal fact must be proven by the judge with a high probability sufficient to acknowledge it to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. If there is no evidence to establish such a degree of conviction, even if there is suspicion of guilt against the defendant, it shall be judged as the benefit of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Do327, Mar. 23, 1993; 2007Do163, Nov. 30, 2007).

Even according to the facts acknowledged by the court below, the defendant decided to deliver a promissory note to this & & & as he would be expected to postpone the performance of his obligations, and even with the knowledge that there is a high possibility of not being paid normally at the due date, the defendant purchased the so-called 'the so-called 'the so-called 'the 'the 'bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbing, and delivered it to this 'the 'b

In addition, the following circumstances revealed through the records, namely, ① the Defendant and the ○○○ consistently stated that each of the instant promissory notes was forged or forged, and that there was no request for forgery; ② there was no evidence to deem that there was a person who supplies forged promissory notes beyond the fact that the Defendant and the ○○○○ was a person who supplies forged promissory notes in daily advertisements, in addition to the remote trend, ③ before purchasing each of the instant promissory notes and delivering them to this & & &, the Defendant provided them to this & & in order to postpone the performance of the obligations, and each of the instant promissory notes appears to have been delivered to this & & & with the same intention; ④ If the Defendant and the ○○○○ intended to deliver forged promissory notes in order to postpone the performance of obligations, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant and the ○○○○○○ was not a person who exercises the instant promissory notes with the knowledge of the fact that there was no need to purchase the forged promissory notes.

Nevertheless, the court below convicted of this part of the facts charged only for the reasons indicated in its holding. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the fabrication of securities or the exercise of forged securities, thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, which affected the conclusion of the judgment

Therefore, this part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant cannot be maintained, and this part of the facts charged and the remaining crimes that the court below found guilty against the defendant should be sentenced to a single punishment in relation to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Thus, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the grounds of appeal on unfair sentencing, the part of the lower judgment against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Min Il-young

Justices Shin Young-chul

Justices Park Poe-young