beta
Text
The judgment below
On November 1, 201, the part concerning the exercise of a falsified document among the guilty part and the innocent part is about the use of the falsified document.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal
A. According to the evidence stated in its reasoning, including the result of appraisal meetings and additional fact-finding meetings (hereinafter collectively referred to as “each of the instant evidence”), as of September 15, 2014 and of November 19, 2014, the lower court reversed the judgment of the first instance that acquitted the Defendant of each of the instant facts charged, and convicted the Defendant of the part of the instant facts charged, on or around September 19, 201, the copy of the written consent to the use of the instant site was modified on or around September 201, and the relevant event was exercised on or around September 19, 2011, and the copy of the written consent to the use of the instant site was modified on or around October 201, and on or around November 1, 2011.
B. However, we cannot agree with the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.
1) As to the examination of evidence, Article 294(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that "the prosecutor, the criminal defendant, or his/her defense counsel may submit documents or articles as evidence and apply for examination of a witness, an expert witness, an interpreter, or a translator." Article 295 provides that "the court shall make a ruling on the application for examination of evidence under Articles 294 and 294-2 and may conduct ex officio the examination of evidence." Article 291 provides that "documents or articles produced by a party to the lawsuit as evidence or documents prepared or transmitted pursuant to Articles 272 and 273 shall be examined separately in court by explaining, explaining, and examining them in court" (Article 294(1)), and Article 292 provides that "the presiding judge may examine documents or articles mentioned in the preceding paragraph in the preceding paragraph in court on his/her own initiative (Article 294(2))," and "the presiding judge shall read them at his/her discretion when investigating evidential documents at the request of a prosecutor, the criminal defendant or his/her defense counsel."