beta
Text
The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan District Court Panel Division.
Reasons
1. Although examining the reasoning of the lower judgment on the first ground of appeal based on evidence, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the object of the crime of forging private documents, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, in the lower judgment that convicted the Defendant of the fact that the crime of forging private documents was committed and that the crime of forging private documents was
The Supreme Court precedents stated in the appellate brief are different from this case, and thus cannot invoke the legal principles of this case.
2. Determination on the fraud among the grounds of appeal No. 2
A. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the crime of fraud was committed on the part of the victim and the compensation for expropriation was deposited as the principal deposit, and the Defendant, by submitting the rules, etc. of the clans Association that forged the crime, by deceiving the deposit officer who is the victim and receiving the deposit money, and the lower court convicted the Defendant of the facts charged.
B. However, among the judgment below, it is difficult to accept the part regarding the victim of fraud as a deposit officer for the following reasons.
1) In a case where the executor of a public works project has deposited the compensation for expropriation, the deposited person shall have the right to claim the payment of the deposit. On the other hand, if the deposit has been paid due to the provisional disposition of the deposit withdrawn by the deposit officer, even if the person who was paid the deposit is not the person who has the right to claim the payment of the deposit, the deposit procedure under the deposit law has been terminated. Therefore, the person who has the right to claim the payment of the deposit may not claim the payment of the deposit or seek the payment of the deposit by civil action against the State (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da39429, Jul. 13, 1993).
C. However, examining the reasoning of the lower judgment based on evidence, the lower court erred as above.