beta
Text
The judgment below
The remainder, excluding the rejection of an application for compensation order, shall be reversed.
The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than five months.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In fact, the Defendant, who is a lessor’s agent, signed and sealed the lease contract prepared by P, which is a lessor’s agent’s interest, and did not forge it, and did not intend to commit fraud.
B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Although the Defendant alleged to the same purport in the judgment of the court below as to the assertion of mistake of the fact, the court below prepared not only the I’s seal affixed on April 30, 1999 on which the deposit amount is KRW 100 million, but also the I’s seal affixed on the other lease contract signed in the name of the I’s authenticity. The contract of this case was prepared as the contract date “ September 30, 2001,” where the term of the lease expires one month after the expiration of the term of the lease. Even according to the Defendant’s statement, the amount of the deposit actually paid by the Defendant is only KRW 10 million and the deposit amount actually paid by the Defendant is just seven months after the date of issuance, and prepared the lease contract whose deposit is increased to KRW 200 million.
In light of the fact that it is difficult to see, there is credibility in P's investigative agency and the court below's statement to the effect that there is no lack in the preparation of the lease agreement of this case.
In light of the above, it was found guilty as to the facts charged in this case that the victim had concealed the victim by forging or using the lease contract of this case.
Examining the judgment of the court below in comparison with the records, it is just for the court below to have judged guilty of the facts charged in this case for the same reasons as the reasoning of the judgment, and there is no error of law affecting the judgment
B. Although the amount of damage caused by the Defendant’s crime of determining unfair sentencing is not significant, the recovery of damage has not been properly achieved.