(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2015.02.06 2014노875

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2015.02.06 2014노875

사문서위조등

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal F, L, while promoting the establishment of a legal entity to attract investment in the business of creating Indonesia, the Defendant was introduced to the Defendant, and the Defendant decided to attract investors together with the establishment of the legal entity after examining various documents on the above Indonesia project.

F was known through the Defendant to invest KRW 500 million in the Indonesian project by Company D (hereinafter referred to as “D”) and K, and therefore, F did not have any reason to borrow money by setting the due date and interest from D when establishing “E” (hereinafter referred to as “E”), and F did not have any monetary loan contract under the name of F and D (hereinafter referred to as “instant contract”). B did not have any obligation to pay the principal or interest at the expiration of one year and eight months from the due date specified in the instant contract before receiving the document verifying the content of D.

In addition, although the defendant stated that he prepared and delivered a monetary loan contract to K, the monetary loan contract to K was not complete.

In the event that the Indonesia project does not proceed smoothly, it was necessary to prepare the instant contract in a way to refund the investment amount.

In addition to these circumstances, considering the consistent statement that G from the investigative agency to the court of law that the Defendant did not permit the preparation of the instant contract, the Defendant may be found guilty of the facts charged in the instant case where he prepared the instant contract in the name of F without authority and delivered the forged contract to H with the production of the F’s seal.

Nevertheless, the court below erred in misunderstanding the facts and sentenced not guilty of the facts charged of this case.

2. Determination:

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2017. 08. 16. 선고 2017누34331 판결

-서울고등법원 2017.08.16 2017누34331

-서울남부지방법원 2015.07.17 2015가합103495

-울산지방법원 2016.09.01 2015구합6174

-수원지방법원 2014.08.25 2014노1019