beta
Text
The judgment below
The remainder, excluding the rejection of an application for compensation order, shall be reversed.
The defendant is judged by the court below.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The defendant of mistake of facts found the defendant guilty of this part of the charges although he did not forge the contract of this case [the Han-gu service contract which was concluded between G and H] or use the forged document. The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
B. In light of the overall sentencing conditions of the instant sentencing case, the lower court’s punishment (the first crime: imprisonment with prison labor for 2 years, and the second crime as indicated in the lower judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for 1 year and 6 months) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The crime of forging a private document in a judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts is established when the form and appearance to the extent sufficient for the general public to enter the document in the authentic private document prepared by the nominal owner in the form and appearance of the nominal owner. It does not necessarily require the signature or seal of the person who prepared the document. However, whether it is sufficient for the general public to enter the document in the real private document prepared by the nominal owner should be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances, including the form and appearance of the document, the preparation process, type, content, and the function of the document in the ordinary transaction (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do10195, Jul. 23, 2009). The uttering of a forged document refers to the use of a document prepared in accordance with the aforesaid Article, which is a true document with a genuine content prepared.
As to the instant case, the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, the Defendant stated that the investigative agency prepared the instant contract in a fake and led to the confession, and there is no reason to doubt the credibility of the said confession. However, the Defendant stated that the instant contract was forged upon the victim’s request by the victim D, but the victim D believed that the instant contract was genuine.