2011 Highest 4865 Occupational embezzlement, fabrication of private documents, uttering of private investigation documents, certified judicial scrivener

Violation of law

(71 years old, South, and North) of this title,

Seoul Residence

Reference domicile Chungcheongbuk

Ise Jinhee

December 14, 2011

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

Criminal facts

On January 26, 2011, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of one year and two months for the crime of forging private documents at the Suwon District Court on January 26, 201, and the sentence becomes final and conclusive on February 3 of the same year and is currently in the grace period.

The Defendant served as a secretary at a law firm from June 2007 to February 2008, and served as an employee at the office of ○○ Attorneys-at-law located in Seoul Seocho-dong from the end of 2009 to the end of 2010.

1. Occupational embezzlement, fabrication of private documents, or uttering of private documents;

(a) Occupational embezzlement;

피고인은 2010. 11. 18. 불상지에서, 피해자 이D으로부터 그가 남靈靈으로부터 매수한 경기 가평군 설악면 등 4필지에 대한 소유권이전등기에 필요한 취득세 등 명목으로 7, 400, 500원을 통장으로 송금받아 위 피해자를 위하여 업무상 보관하고 있던 중 , 그 무렵 위 금원 중 취득세 명목의 2, 759, 750원과 농어촌특별세 명목의 155, 980원 합계 2, 915, 700원을 피고인의 개인 채무 변제에 마음대로 사용하여 이를 횡령하였다 .

(b) Forgery of private documents;

On November 28, 2010, the Defendant, at the office of the Defendant (202) located in Gangnam-gu, Chungcheongnamdong, Seoul, submitted to the 1-A of the above 1-A (the above 1,715,820 won and the total amount of acquisition tax and special rural development tax imposed on the 1,715,820 won and 1,19,880 won and 1,880 won are stated in the 1-A of the above 1-A of the acquisition tax and special rural development tax on the 1-A of the above 1-A of the above 1-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-3-3-2-3-3-2-3-3-2-3-3-3-3-33-3-33-33-4-33-33-4-2010). Accordingly, the Defendant, as a private document, had a certification of facts.

Part II of the receipt and the receipt were forged.

(c) Exercising a falsified investigation document;

On November 28, 2010, the Defendant: (a) issued a forged acquisition tax payment (payment) and receipt (payment 2) to E.I.D in the E.’s survey and design office located in Bupyeong-gu, Gyeonggi-gu, Dong-gu, Gyeonggi-do; and (b) exercised a forged private document.

2. Forgery of private documents and the uttering of falsified private documents;

(a) Forgery of private documents;

On November 25, 2009, the Defendant indicated as follows: “In the indication column of the site for real estate in the form of “application for ownership transfer” using a civil petitioner’s computer kept in that place for the purpose of exercising at the family registry office located in Pyeongtaek-gu, Dongyeong-gun, Dongyeong-gun, Dongyeong-gun, the Defendant: “Transfer of ownership” in the column for the purpose of registration; “I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I C CF mp 15 and I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I will like to the above applicant or his representative. On February 2, 2008, the Defendant affixed the seal of the representative legal representative of the law firm who was in custody under XX, who was retired from the law firm at issue.

The Defendant, including this, provided that the Defendant applied for the registration of transfer of ownership by attorneys Kim 00 over ten times from November 25, 2009 to November 18, 2010.

(b) Exercising a falsified investigation document;

As stated in the preceding paragraph, the Defendant immediately submitted an application for registration of transfer of ownership to the person who was forged, Kim 00, who was named in the family registry office’s name, and exercised it as indicated in the list of crimes.

3. Violation of the Certified Judicial Scriveners Act;

On July 16, 2009, the Defendant was not a certified judicial scrivener, and the Defendant received KRW 300,000 from the lowest amount of money, and prepared an application for the transfer of land ownership to the above family registry office, and submitted it to the personnel of the above family registry office immediately. Accordingly, the Defendant, who is not a certified judicial scrivener, was engaged in the business of preparing documents necessary for registration and acting as an agent for application for registration delegated by other persons.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each protocol concerning the examination of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Statement of the police;

1. A complaint, receipt for payment of acquisition tax each forged, receipt (which is issued by the office of Kim-at-law), peremptory notice for urging acquisition tax, and each investigation report;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Criminal records and investigation reports (Attachment to separate judgments);

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Articles 356, 355(1), 231, and 234 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 74(1)1, 3, and 2 (Appointment of Imprisonment) of the Certified Judicial Scriveners Act

1. Handling concurrent crimes;

The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

The reason for sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act is that even though the defendant committed the crime of this case due to economic difficulties, and there was a situation in which the defendant committed the crime of this case, and the mistake was divided in depth after the crime of this case, and the defendant was punished for the same crime as the previous crime. However, in light of the fact that the defendant made several payments of acquisition tax (payment) and forged and uses an application for registration of transfer of ownership, the crime of this case is extremely poor. In light of the fact that some of the above crimes committed while being tried in the previous contents as above, it seems that the defendant lacks the awareness of compliance, and that there was no agreement with the victim, the sentence should be decided by taking into account all the sentencing conditions against the defendant as stated in the records of this case.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judge Choi Jong-il