beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. As to the part of the uttering of the above investigation document which was acquitted by the lower court in the summary of the grounds for appeal, the fact that the passport in the name of Peru has been forged may be sufficiently recognized in light of the contents of the reply to the fact-finding by the Embassy of the Republic of Peru, and according to the defendant and witness E’s statement, etc., the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the charges, which is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts or in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence, thereby adversely affecting
2. Determination
A. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the summary of the uttering of the perjury is that “the Defendant: (a) received a Peruvian passport on D forged B’s passport from the Dong-dong, Busan-gu, Gyeonggi-gu; and (b) around December 2008, at H located in the Government of Gyeonggi-do, I of the Government of Gyeonggi-do, submitted to the employee in charge of admission who could not know his name, a copy of the Peruvian passport for the forged D, as above, as a document attached to the Defendant’s application for admission to the Plaintiff.”
B. As to this, according to the reply letter by the Embassy of the Republic of Peru, the court below stated that the resident registration office of the Republic of Peru has no registered birth in the English name of D, and there is no unique number granted on the resident registration date, and thus, the issuance of the passport to D is possible in 2007. However, since it is possible to issue the passport even if it is not registered on the resident registration office in 2007, the original copy of the passport shall be secured in order to determine the forgery of the passport. Accordingly, the above evidence alone is insufficient to confirm that the defendant's issuance of the passport to D was forged, and there is no other obvious evidence to acknowledge it. Furthermore, it is sufficient to prove that the defendant's application form was forged.