beta
Text
The judgment below
Of them, the part of the modification of private documents on the part of “Surety E” shall be reversed.
. against the Defendant.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal lies in the part of the lease contract of this case other than the part "No one was paid with electricity fee of KRW 700,00,00,00 and father E of the guarantor." The above part constitutes an alteration to the extent that the defendant's writing constitutes an alteration to the extent that the general public believe that the lease contract of this case exists, because it constitutes an important matter concerning the rights and obligations under the lease contract.
In addition, the Defendant made a statement that “electric fee is KRW 700,000,00,000, and only one of them was received” (hereinafter “section 1”) states that D shall make a verbal agreement to pay to D himself/herself, and the part written “Surety E” (hereinafter “section 2”) written by D’s father is not written as to the guarantor as a matter of course. According to such Defendant’s statement, according to this Defendant’s statement, the purpose of exercise at the time of alteration is recognized, and the document altered by submitting the lease agreement altered by the Defendant in the relevant civil procedure to the court as evidence was used.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted each of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles or affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the alteration of the first part of the document and its exercise, the first part of the document written by the defendant was objectively deemed to have reached the extent of having the general public mistake in a document with a new probative value, or there is a risk of undermining the safety and credit of transaction of private documents. Thus, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is either the alteration of the lease contract for the purpose of exercising by the defendant, or the alteration was made on the premise thereof.