logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2013.06.07 2013노5
사기등
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court, among the facts charged in the instant case, acquitted the Defendant on the forgery of private documents and the uttering of falsified documents. However, according to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it is sufficient to find the Defendant guilty of the facts charged, and therefore, there is an error of misconception of facts in the judgment of the lower court

B. In addition to the assertion of unfair sentencing determination, the sentence imposed by the court below as a whole (two years of suspended sentence for one year of imprisonment, two hours of probation and community service order) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. The summary of the facts charged in the judgment of the court below, on June 17, 2011, the defendant called 'F' office operated by the defendant in Gyeonggi-si E, Gyeonggi-do, to Hyundai Card Member Subscription Form, and made the said Hyundai Card Member with his name-based name-based name-based name-based name-based name-based name-based name-based name-based name-based name-based name-based name-based name-based name-based name-based name-based name-based name-based name-based name-based name-based name-based name-based name-based name-based name-based name-based name-based name-based name-based name-based name-based name-based name-based name-based name-based name-based name-based name-based name-based name-based name-based name-based name-based name-based name-based name-based name-based name-based name-based name-based name-based name-based name-based name-based name-based name-based name-based name-based name-based name-based identity.

3. The lower court’s judgment held that the issues pertaining to the above facts charged are either the authority of K’s wife to give consent to the Defendant to the issuance of an industrial card under the name of K, or the authority of K to give consent to the issuance of a credit card under its name on behalf of K.

arrow