logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.12.11 2017노2466
사문서위조등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the court below's determination, the defendant C was actually authorized to prepare various documents in the name of the victim. Thus, each of the two of the above cases was authentic, and even if there was no authority to do so, C did not have such authority.

even if the defendant has such authority for C

There are reasonable grounds to believe that there is a good reason.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of all the facts charged on the premise that each of the two execution notes of this case was forged constitutes a case where there is no evidence of crime, but all of the facts charged against the Defendant.

B. The sentence that the court below sentenced against the defendant (ten months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and 120 hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of fact, the lower court entrusted Defendant C with the authority to prepare each of the statements in the victim’s name.

there is no reasonable ground to believe that the defendant has such belief.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty on the same premise is just, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts as pointed out by the defendant, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

① On October 2014, the victims decided to jointly carry out the business of constructing multi-household houses on the land of JJ in C, B, and Gyeonggi-gun, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership of the said land in the future. However, it seems that there is no reason for the victims to delegate C the authority to prepare documents in their names as to the development project of the said E land, which is the land other than the said land.

(2) Moreover, the victim may take March 2014.

arrow