The case denying the probative value on the ground that the results of the written appraisal by the National Institute of Scientific Investigation on the same appraisal are inconsistent;

The case denying the probative value and not guilty on the ground that the results of the written appraisal by the National Institute of Scientific Investigation on the same appraisal are inconsistent with each other.

Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant

Attorney Or-hee

The defendant is innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged in this case is as follows: "The defendant is engaged in the representative office of the non-indicted corporation, which is the tinsan Development Corporation."

A. On September 19, 191, the facts of the claim for ownership transfer registration filed by the Busan District Court with respect to the plaintiff Jeong Byung-jin and the above court 91 Gohap14805 of the defendant's above court were paid to the non-indicted Byung Byung-jin on October 31, 1988, notwithstanding the fact that the non-indicted Lee Jong-il paid 21,00,000 won around October 31, 198, in order to use the above facts for proving the above facts, the non-indicted Lee Jong-il, who is unaware of the circumstances, submitted to the court the receipt form in the column of the receipt form in the date and the non-indicted Lee Jong-il, 21,00,000 won, the detailed list in the column of "Sick-Jick-Jick (Completion)," respectively, and after signing at his name on October 31, 198, the defendant exercised the above certificate of facts concerning the above name of the defendant, and submitted it to the court one of the above receipts.

B. On May 12, 198, the above facts in the court were not paid as interest payment, even though it was not paid as 2,00,000,000 won in the above court around January 12, 1988, in order to prove that the above amount was paid as a result of the adjustment of interest in the above lawsuit, the above Lee Jong-il, who is unaware of such fact, was paid as interest payment in the above lawsuit, exercised it if it was submitted to the above court one copy of the receipts in the above private document, which is a private document concerning the certificate of fact altered by inserting it into the "one million won of the receipt of 2,00,000,000 won in the name of Jeong Byung-il on January 1, 198," and the above amount was clearly received.

2. Defendant's assertion;

With respect to the case of the claim for ownership transfer registration from prosecution to Busan District Court 91 Gohap14805, the defendant submitted to the court one receipt of October 31, 198 (hereinafter "the first receipt of this case") and one receipt of January 1, 198 (hereinafter "the second receipt of this case") as stated in the facts charged of this case. However, the first receipt of this case was signed by the defendant as the representative director after stating the amount column, the statement column, the date column, and the second receipt of this case's second receipt of this case's second receipt of this case's case's second receipt of this case's case's second bill of this case's case's 2,00,000 won as interest payment, and after receiving the receipt of this case's 2,00,000 won as interest payment, the defendant did not have obtained the above statement of this case's signature with his consent and affixed it to the above defendant's signature, and there was no forgery or alteration of the above Article's above.

3. Evidence as to the facts charged and judgment thereof

The evidence concerning the facts charged in this case is submitted in this court, each protocol of interrogation of the accused prepared by the prosecutor (290, 311, 396) of the defendant prepared by the prosecutor, a copy of each protocol of investigation of the defendant prepared by the prosecutor (436, 483, 491, 514), a copy of each protocol of investigation of the defendant prepared by the prosecutor (411, 427) of the prosecutor's investigation record, a copy of each protocol of investigation of the defendant prepared by the prosecutor (350), a copy of the protocol of investigation of the second day prepared by the prosecutor (613), a copy of the statement prepared by the prosecutor (607, investigation record), a copy of the protocol of investigation of the second day written by the prosecutor (474, investigation record), a copy of the protocol of investigation of the defendant prepared by the prosecutor, a copy of each protocol of investigation record of the prosecutor's investigation record of the prosecutor's investigation record of the prosecutor (130,1316,197).

First, according to the contents of each protocol of interrogation and statement of the defendant 2.3, the defendant denies all of the above crimes as stated in the above 2.3, and the contents of each protocol of interrogation and statement of the defendant 2. The defendant's signature and statement of the 3.3. The above protocol of interrogation and statement of the 1.3. The prosecutor's signature and statement of the 1.3. The prosecutor's signature and statement of the 1.3. The prosecutor's signature and statement of the 1.3. The prosecutor's signature and statement of the 3.3. The prosecutor's signature and statement of the 1.3. The prosecutor's signature and statement of the 1.3. The prosecutor's signature and statement of the 3.3. The prosecutor's signature and statement of the 1.3. The prosecutor's signature and statement of the 1.3. The prosecutor's signature and statement of the 1.3. The prosecutor's signature and statement of the 3.0.3. The prosecutor's signature and statement of the 9.

However, according to the 192. 27's appraisal report by the National Scientific Research Institute of this case, it is hard to conclude that the above 19-1's signature was 9's signature and 2-1's signature and 3-1's signature and 9-2's signature and 9-1's signature and 9-2's signature and 9-1's signature and 9-2's signature and 9-2's signature and 9-1's signature and 9-2's signature and 9-1's signature and 9-2's signature and 9-1's signature and 9-2's signature and 9-2's signature and 9-1's signature and 9-2's signature and 9-1's signature and 9-2's signature and 9-2's signature and 19-2's signature and 19-2's signature and 9-2's signature and seal.

Therefore, it is insufficient to examine all the evidence revealed in this court and to recognize that the defendant forged the signature of the No. 1 receipt of this case or altered the No. 2 receipt of this case as stated in the indictment. Thus, the conviction in a criminal trial should be based on strict evidence with probative value, which makes a judge not to have any reasonable doubt, and if there is no such evidence, even if there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant, it should be determined based on the defendant's interest. Therefore, each of the above evidence alone cannot be said to be insufficient to have conviction to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt as to the facts charged of this case.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Judges Jeon Soo-tae