logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2014.01.17 2013노1928
위조사문서행사
Text

The Defendants’ appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As a result of demanding a misunderstanding of facts H to prepare a receipt of a check while paying KRW 300 million, H would directly prepare the receipt of the check in the name of H, and the above Defendant A would have prepared a receipt of the check in the name of H. The Defendant A exercised the check without hearing the circumstances that the receipt of the check was forged by Defendant B. The Defendants did not have any criminal intent for the uttering of the above investigation document.

B. In light of the various sentencing conditions in the instant case of unfair sentencing, the lower court’s punishment against the Defendants (one million won by each fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged by comprehensively taking account of the macroscopic evidence.

B. The court below found the following circumstances that can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, ① appears as a witness in the court of the court below and stated that the Defendants did not permit the preparation of the check (the 36th page of the trial record), ② Defendant B prepared a check receipt certificate in the name of H in order to report to the company with the record that he paid money to H at the time of the investigation by the prosecutor’s office, and ③ Defendant B stated to the effect that he did not have obtained H’s consent at the time of preparing the check receipt (Evidence No. 376,377 pages of the evidence record). In addition, Defendant B issued the check receipt certificate to the prosecutor’s office, and Defendant A did not prepare it, and Defendant A knew that the check receipt was not prepared by H as a matter of course, and Defendant A was not prepared by the police, and Defendant A stated to the effect that it was not clear that it was a punishment for Defendant A, and that it was false and uncertain.

arrow