beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 4,000,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles 1) With respect to the forgery of a private document and the uttering of a falsified document, the instant loan certificate is not a document in the name of D.
I is a document in the name of the I prepared by D to guarantee the debt to D, and only the debtor is described as D in order to specify the main debt.
D There is no signature and seal affixed thereto.
2) As to the attempted fraud, the Defendant has a claim for loans of KRW 30 million against D in fact.
Therefore, an application for a payment order seeking payment of KRW 30 million does not constitute fraud attempts.
B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (an amount of KRW 6 million) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination on the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles
A. As to the forgery of a private document and the uttering of a falsified investigation document, the Defendant has made the same assertion as the Defendant alleged in the lower court.
The court below rejected the Defendant’s assertion and its determination under the title of “determination on the Defendant’s and his defense counsel’s assertion”.
In addition to the following legal principles and circumstances, the judgment of the court below is justifiable, since the defendant can sufficiently recognize the forgery of the certificate of borrowing the name D and the fact of exercising the certificate.
Therefore, the defendant's misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are without merit.
① The crime of forging a private document is established when the form and appearance to the extent that it can be seen as a document prepared by the nominal owner is sufficient to enter the document in the real private document prepared by the nominal owner. It does not necessarily require that the signature or seal of the nominal owner be affixed to the general public (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1674, May 10, 2007).