beta
Text
The judgment below
The guilty part (including the part not guilty) shall be reversed.
Of the facts charged in the instant case.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the court below found the defendant not guilty on the charge of forging a private document, utteringing a falsified document, uttering of a falsified document, and attempted attempted fraud regarding KRW 32,160,00 among the facts charged in the case, although the defendant, without authority, has recognized that he forged a letter of delegation in the name of E, a private document concerning E, which is a private document concerning E, and had a genuine claim of KRW 62,40,000,000,000 for the victim E, and the crime of attempted fraud was established upon filing an application for seizure and collection order. In light of the overall circumstances of the case, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, and in light of the overall circumstances of the case, the sentence (one year of suspended execution for April) which
B. The court below found Defendant E’s mother-friendly H was entrusted with the preparation of a notarial deed with the consent of Defendant E on the debt burden, and agreed to prepare a notarial deed including the seal imprint certificate and the seal imprint certificate, and presented the seal imprint certificate and the seal imprint certificate, and prepared the notarial deed on March 3, 2008, and subsequently requested debt collection to G and H on the consideration credit information as to the principal not repaid. Thus, the court below found Defendant guilty on the ground that there was no criminal intent of false entry in the original notarial deed, the fraudulent entry in the notarial deed, the use of the notarial deed, and the attempted fraud, and there was an error of law by misunderstanding legal principles, and it is not so.
Even in light of the overall circumstances of this case, the above sentence imposed by the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. (1) Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake and misapprehension of the legal principles, the evidence submitted by the court below on the grounds of the circumstances stated in its reasoning is sufficient from G and H at the time.