The judgment below

Among the guilty part against Defendant A and the innocent part, the above-mentioned document shall be exercised on April 2013.

1. According to the records on the summary of the grounds for appeal (the fact-finding and the misapprehension of legal principles), the court below found the defendant guilty of part of the facts charged against the defendant A and found the defendant not guilty of part of the facts charged against the defendant, and only the defendant did not appeal but filed an appeal against the part not guilty among the judgment below, so in principle, the scope of the

However, the prosecutor's appeal based on the principle of non-payment of the appeal is all the guilty part and the acquittal part as to the perjury, since the prosecutor appealed on the part of the charge as to the perjury of July 14, 2016 against Defendant A and the prosecutor appealed on the acquittal part of the above reasoning.

Therefore, the perjury portion of July 14, 2016 is included in the scope of adjudication as it is judged that the entire conviction part including the conviction part is transferred to the trial.

In addition, the part of the perjury of July 14, 2016, which was sentenced to one punishment in relation to concurrent crimes with the guilty portion, is also transferred to the appellate court.

Accordingly, the entire judgment of the court below is the scope of the trial of the party.

According to evidence, the court below found the Defendants not guilty of the charges against the Defendants, but acquitted of the charges, there is an error of misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles in the judgment below.

2. Determination

가. 2016고단4592 원심판결 부분 ⑴ 피고인 B에 대한 사문서위조 및 위조사문서 행사의 점 ㈎ 원심은 A의 원심법정에서의 진술 내용, A의 진술이 수사기관에서부터 이 법정에 이르기까지 일관되지 않은 점, 당시 A과 함께 공인중개사사무소를 운영한 H은 피고인 B가 계약서를 작성하거나 이를 행사하는 모습을 실제로 목격하지 못한 점, 피고인이 2013. 3. 18. 당시 A의 행위에 어떻게 가담하였는지를 확인할 수 있는 증거가 없는 점 등을 이유로 피고인이 A과 공모하여 사문서위조 및 위조사문서행사...