1. As to the Prosecutor’s Appeal:

The use of forged documents refers to the act of presenting forged documents as if they were genuine or made available to others for perusal, so it cannot be said that the copy of the falsified document is presented. Thus, if a copy of the letter of this case and written confirmation which the defendant has forged is submitted to the court as evidence for civil procedure as stated in the facts charged in this case, it does not constitute a crime of uttering of forged documents, since it does not constitute a crime of uttering of falsified documents (see Supreme Court Decision 77Do4068 delivered on April 11, 1978 and Supreme Court Decision 83Do1829 delivered on September 13, 1983). The decision of the court below with this purport is just and opposite opinion that a copy of forged documents using a photograph, copy, etc. is different from its original, so even if such copy is used, it cannot be adopted that the crime of uttering of falsified documents is established.

2. As to the Defendant’s appeal:

In light of records, we accept the timely criminal facts in the judgment of the court of first instance, and it cannot be said that there is no error of law in the process of evidence collection or examination, and there is no misapprehension of the legal principles as to document forgery and embezzlement. Therefore, the theory of lawsuit that maintains the judgment of the court of first instance is just and different opinion is not adopted.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeon Soo-hee (Presiding Justice)