logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.10.13 2015노4032
사기등
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual errors and misapprehension of the legal principles) is that the excessive ingredients of the arching pen which are widely used in the Republic of Korea are most the same, whether the above loan certificate's "sureties" and D are similar to those of the above loan certificate can not be determined by the written appraiser, not the possibility of alteration by a third party, not the possibility of alteration by preparing a loan certificate which is a disposal document on the vehicle, and cannot be viewed as the same case. It cannot be rejected C's statement on the ground that the above loan certificate's location, etc. cannot be memoryd in detail. The defendant committed a similar alteration in the past, the defendant committed a similar act in the past, and it is difficult to see that there is no further agreement to describe the phrase "A creditor's return" in addition to the above loan certificate in the situation where the phrase "sureties" is added. In light of the above, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the facts of this case is erroneous and misunderstanding the legal principles.

2. As to the facts charged of this case, the court below is doubtful that the defendant added the phrase "sureties" to the loan certificate of this case and changed it. However, there is sufficient reason to request C to have the guarantor for additional loan, the phrase "sureties" and the phrase "signing" on the loan certificate of this case are similar to the size of D, it is difficult to see that D was directly prepared by the defendant. In light of the fact that it is difficult to believe C's statement in light of the location where the loan certificate of this case was written and the source of the site, etc., it is difficult to prepare the loan certificate of this case in the vehicle, and that the defendant applied for a payment order against D and enforced execution against D with respect to the ginseng distribution of this case.

arrow