beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
However, the above punishment shall be imposed for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Legal principles are as follows: (a) the date and place of a crime; (b) the other party; and (c) the form of the commission of a crime is identical; and (d) the forgery of a private document accompanied by the foregoing Article is absorption into the crime of forgery of a private document; (b) the Defendant’s signing as if he were B on the report of detection of the driver of the police carrying-on device (PDA) was incorporated into the crime of forgery of the private document and the signature of the above investigation, although the Defendant’s signing was not constituted a crime of forgery of the private document and the signature of the above investigation, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the charge, by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (six months of imprisonment, one year of suspended sentence, and 40 hours of lecture for compliance driving) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Before making ex officio determination on the grounds for ex officio appeal, the prosecutor withdraws from the Defendant’s name of the crime in the first instance, “the forgery of a private document and the uttering of the above investigation document,” respectively, “Articles 231 and 234 of the Criminal Act,” and “the forgery of a private document and the uttering of the above investigation document,” among the facts charged, “2.” “the forgery of a private document and the uttering of the above investigation document,” and “3.” in the second proviso of paragraph (2), “the forgery of a private signature and the display of signature” were “the discovery of the driver’s report,” and “the forgery of a private document, which is a private document to prove the facts, forged one copy of the driver’s circumstantial report, which is a private document to prove the facts, and exercised it,” and thus, the court below’s judgment was no longer possible to grant permission to modify the contents of the report by means of forging the signature of the driver’s name in the Jeju driver’s report and using it.”
B. The defendant-appellant.