beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the gist of the grounds for appeal, it is recognized that the defendant has forged one copy of an entrustment contract for construction waste collection, transportation, and disposal services in the name of E, and the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant
2. The Defendant of the facts charged in the instant case at around October 201, with a mix of inspection in the name of “construction waste collection, transportation, and disposal entrustment contract form” in the name of “construction waste collection, transportation, and disposal contract form”, “Seoul Geumcheon-gu C” in the discharge site column, “Seoul Geumcheon-gu immediately after completion” in the settlement terms column, “after completion” in the terms and conditions of payment, “on October 31, 201 through November 30, 201” in the terms and conditions of the entrustment contract; “on October 31, 2011 to November 30, 201” in the terms of “waste concrete, ton, 300, 700, 800, 1500, mixed concrete, ton, 50, 700, 2700, 2700,” the name of “Seoul-do” in the name of “Seoul-do”, “Seoul-do column’s phone number”, “the name and “E” column” in the name” column.
Accordingly, the Defendant forged an entrustment contract for construction waste collection, transportation, and disposal services in the name of E, a private document on rights and obligations for the purpose of uttering.
3. Determination
A. The lower court determined that the Defendant’s entrustment contract for construction waste collection, transportation, and disposal services (hereinafter “instant construction waste collection, transportation, and disposal services”) is called the instant contract.
There is no direct evidence to acknowledge that ‘the contract of this case was directly prepared', and ② to recognize that the defendant prepared the contract of this case, the contract of this case which was not forged entered the number of the defendants, and it should be recognized that the contract of this case was forged before it went out of the number of the defendants, and there is no evidence corresponding to this point.