beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Fact-misunderstanding ① In relation to the fact that “the evidence of forgery and event for the custody of the deceased G cash,” the above cash custody certificate was not forged by his/her will before G, but was modified in light of the external appearance of the above agreement with regard to “the alteration and event of the agreement in the name of F and two persons”.
It is difficult to see otherwise, and there is no clear evidence to prove it, and 3. In relation to the fact of “F’s delegation of powers, agreement on the establishment of a right to collateral, and document forgery and use of a document necessary for the establishment of a right to collateral security from F in accordance with each of the above agreements, and thus, it is not forged, and 4. In relation to the fact of “the act of an original electronic document to be recorded falsely or falsely in the original electronic document,” the above power of delegation and agreement on the establishment of a right to collateral security is not forged, and thus, it does not constitute an act of an original electronic document to be recorded falsely or falsely in the original electronic document, and thus, the judgment of the court below convict
B. The punishment of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts
A. The following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by the court below and the court below on the evidence duly adopted and investigated as to the forgery and use of the evidence for the custody of the net G G, namely, (i) the Defendant was a loan granted to the network G at the time of the police statement, but later, the Defendant was a loan granted to the network G at the time of the police statement; (ii) the Defendant’s statement was made to receive the profit generated from the sale of the building, not the loan, and (iii) the statement on the large amount of KRW 500 million was not consistent and is not clearly explained. (ii) According to the request of the National Institute of Scientific Investigation for Evaluation by the Director of the National Institute of Scientific Investigation, according to the request for appraisal by the Director of the Korea Institute of Research for