beta
Text
The judgment below
The remainder of the grounds, excluding the acquittal portion as to the violation of securities in the name of C, shall be acquitted.
Reasons
I. Summary of the grounds for appeal
1. A prosecutor;
A. Since misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles 1) B as to October 22, 2013, 200 million won, and 30 million won on December 30, 2013, 200 won, B was aware that each of the above money was to be delivered to the Defendant at the time of remitting the above money according to E’s proposal, even if each of the above money was deposited into the Defendant’s account via E’s account, it should be deemed that B paid the above money to the Defendant, and thus, the victim of the said money should be deemed as B. Nevertheless, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged. 2) Nevertheless, in view of the fact that the Defendant was guilty of the fraudulent lending of loans to the lending company under the name of J, and that the Defendant had the Defendant make a false statement to J in this case, it cannot be deemed that the J voluntarily applied for the loan under the name of C, and it should be deemed that the Defendant applied for the loan under the Defendant’s name.
Nevertheless, the lower court rendered a judgment of not guilty of this part of the facts charged by misconception of facts.
3) The crime of fraud against the nominal holder is established in the event that the nominal holder of a fraud caused by the failure to pay the credit card in the name of C by deceiving the nominal holder of the fraud, and the credit card was issued and used. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby acquitted this part of the facts charged, which is the most important part in the loan certificate, and thus, the act of raising the amount much larger than the existing amount constitutes forgery in the same manner as the act of preparing a loan certificate entirely different from the existing amount. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby recognizing the remaining amount of four copies of the loan certificate except for the loan certificate issued on September 9, 201 as the alteration of a private document and acquitted him of the facts charged in the Article of private document on September 9, 2011 as the case of the loan certificate issued on September 9, 2011.