(영문) 대구지방법원 2017.07.06 2016고단3320

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 대구지방법원 2017.07.06 2016고단3320

사문서위조등

Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

[criminal records] On February 17, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for criminal fraud at the Changwon District Court on October 10, 201, and the judgment became final and conclusive on the 25th of the same month.

[Criminal facts]

1. On August 11, 2015, the Defendant forged a private document: “F” and “G” were written in the column of the paper for the loan instrument written by the creditor E, which was written and printed on the Internet by means of a computer on the Internet, and “F” and “G” were written in the column of the debt holder, and the name and seal impression of F and G were written in the column of the said debt manager, respectively.

Accordingly, for the purpose of exercising authority, the Defendant forged a letter of borrowed money in the name of F and G, a private document related to rights and obligations.

2. On August 13, 2015, the Defendant was operated by E in the counter of Changwon-si, Changwon-si on August 13, 2015.

I issued a forged loan certificate to E without knowledge of such circumstances as above and exercised it as if it were duly formed.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of the witness E (part) and F;

1. Recording of each part of the witness F and G in the second public trial records;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of suspect to the prosecution of some part of the defendant (including theF statement);

1. A copy of a certificate of borrowing;

1. Before the judgment: Criminal history inquiry, investigation report (a copy of the judgment attached) [the defendant and his defense counsel] prepared a certificate of borrowed money (hereinafter "the certificate of borrowed money of this case") under the name of the defendant without the consent of F and G in advance. However, this was prepared in the course of terminating the existing E-related mortgage for the increase of loans, and there was a comprehensive delegation, such as F, or an implied consent or presumption consent in preparation.

As such, I argue to the effect that it does not constitute a private document perjury.

The records of this case are as follows.

유사 판례

-청주지방법원 2018.10.30 2017고단2059

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.12.22 2016고합1389

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2017.01.13 2016고단2104

-서울동부지방법원 2017.09.15 2016고단3402

-전주지방법원 2017.10.30 2017고단1038