logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2018.11.29 2017도10347
사기등
Text

The appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment that acquitted the Defendant on the ground that there was no proof of crime regarding the charge of forging and using forged air defense among the facts charged in the instant case.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of forging public marks and the crime of

2. Where a court recognizes a minor criminal facts included in the criminal facts charged within the scope that the identity of the facts charged is recognized, if it deems that there is no concern about causing substantial disadvantage to the defendant's exercise of his/her right to defense in light of the progress of trial, it may, ex officio, recognize a criminal facts different from the facts charged in the indictment, even if the indictment was not modified. However, even in such a case, if the facts charged are serious in comparison with the facts charged in the indictment, and if the indictment is not punished for the reason that the facts charged in question are not modified because they are serious in comparison with the facts charged in the indictment, the court did not recognize the criminal facts ex officio unless it recognizes that it goes against justice and equity

Nor can it be deemed an unlawful act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 90Do1229, Oct. 26, 1990; 2008Do2120, May 8, 2008). Examining the aforementioned legal principles and records, the lower court did not ex officio examine and determine whether the Defendant’s act of forging and using a motor vehicle registration number plate constitutes a violation of the Motor Vehicle Management Act.

(b)if any;

arrow