2020Do14045 A. Violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving)

(b) Violation of the Road Traffic Act;

(c) Illegal uttering of official documents;

(d) Forgery of a private signature;

(e) Exercising the above investigation signature;

(f) Forgery of private documents;

(g) Exercising a falsified investigation document;

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Lee So-young

Ulsan District Court Decision 2020No359 Decided September 17, 2020

December 30, 2020

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In order to establish a crime of forging a private signature, etc., a signature, etc. shall reach the extent that the signature, etc. is made to be recorded with the authentic signature, etc. of a specific person. Whether it is sufficient for the general public to mislead the specific person with the authentic signature, etc. should also be determined by taking into account not only the form and appearance of the signature, etc., but also the necessity of signing, etc. in a document stating the signature, etc., details of preparation of the document, type, and the function of the document in general transaction (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do4478, Dec. 23, 2005).

Of the facts charged in the instant case, with respect to the forgery of a private signature and the uttering of a private investigation signature, the lower court: (a) when the Defendant was in control of a drunk driving, the Nonindicted Party’s signature column on the driver Nonindicted Party’s signature among the notice of the result of the influence of drinking driving indicated in the portable Information Terminal (PDA), he was examined with the name of

A person shall be appointed.

The judgment of the court of first instance, which judged that the name was forged, was guilty, was affirmed. Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence inconsistent with logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the establishment of the crime of forging and uttering of

According to Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal may be filed on the ground of unfair sentencing. Therefore, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the defendant, the argument that the punishment

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

The presiding Justice shall mobilization by the presiding Justice

Justices Kim Jae-sik in charge

Justices Min Min-young

Justices Noh Tae-ok