logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 고양지원 2018.02.23 2017고정482
사문서위조등
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. Facts charged;

A. On April 2013, the Defendant was aware of the charge of forging a private document, with the knowledge of his knowledge as a early policeman.

While borrowing one vehicle from C to C, the vehicle was leased to C, but it was impossible to seek a vehicle, the vehicle was leased in the name of D working for the Defendant, and the vehicle was used to lend it to C.

On April 12, 2013, the Defendant entered into a contract with the F’s name-free employee (State) in the Dong-gu Office of Yongsan-gu (U.D.) to siren one car car in the name of K5 under the name of D (State), and entered into the vehicle lease contract into the “C” and the “D” in the lessee column. On April 17, 2013, the Defendant signed the electronic signature of (State) D on the side of the lessee’s column of the above contract at the above office.

Accordingly, for the purpose of uttering, the Defendant forged one copy of the lease contract of a vehicle in the name of D, a private document on rights and obligations.

B. On April 17, 2013, the Defendant, at the foregoing office, submitted at the above office a copy of the vehicle lease agreement in the name of D, which was forged as described in the foregoing paragraph (a) to F, and exercised it.

2. The Defendant concluded a lease contract of the instant vehicle with the permission of G, the representative director of D, a stock company, from an investigative agency to this court.

argument is asserted.

However, the following facts and circumstances that can be acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court, i.e., the following facts and circumstances, i.e.,: (i) G was not allowed to use the corporate seal at will without its own permission in this Court; and (ii) the details of such use were also reported by the accounting staff at all times.

The statement also has been made that there was no permission or report on the use of the seal imprint, etc. only in the case of the conclusion of the lease contract of the vehicle of this case.

arrow