[2] In a case where the Defendant deleted and copied the temporary part at the bottom of the entire certificate of registered matters perused and printed via the Internet as the corrected tape and delivered it to another person and was prosecuted for the alteration and uttering of an altered official document, the case holding that the Defendant’s act of copying the date and time of inspection of the entire certificate constitutes the act of making a document with new probative value different from the right and fact relation indicating the entire certificate of registered matters, and thereby, that act constitutes a risk of undermining public credit

[2] The case holding that in a case where the Defendant’s temporary inspection of the bottom of the entire certificate of registered matters perused and printed through the Internet was charged for the alteration and display of an altered official document by delivering it to another person, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the entire certificate and its probative value on the ground that the Defendant’s temporary inspection of the entire certificate constitutes an act of representing the date and time of legal relationship on the register and constitutes an important part in legal relationship or proof of facts, and there is no time and time entry of the temporary inspection, and there is a obvious difference between the entire certificate of registered matters which prove the legal relationship on the register and the date and time of the inspection, and there is no clear difference between the entire certificate of registered matters which prove the legal relationship on the basis of the date and time and the entire certificate of registered matters without indicating the time and time of the inspection, and in light of the ordinary person’s power of distinguishing the average level of registered matters, not the legal person or experts in the related field, it is difficult to view that the entire certificate of registered matters was not in form and appearance of an official document to the extent easily deleted.

1. Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court reversed the first instance judgment convicting the Defendant on the alteration of official documents and the event thereof, and acquitted the Defendant, on the ground that the Defendant’s act of withdrawing and copying the temporary part at the bottom of the entire certificate of registered matters printed out via the Internet as a corrected tape cannot be readily concluded that the Defendant’s act of cutting and copying new probative value to the extent that it is likely to impair public trust.

2. However, the above determination by the lower court is difficult to accept.

A. The crime of altering official documents is established when a person without authority writes new probative value by altering the content of documents already prepared by a public office or a public official to the extent that the identity would not be undermined (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do7339, Dec. 26, 2003). In this case, the crime of altering official documents is established when a document prepared with the form and appearance that make it possible for a public official or a public office to believe that the document was prepared within the authority of a public official or a public office. Whether a public official can be believed as a document prepared within the authority of a public official or a public office should be determined by comprehensively considering not only the form and appearance of the document, but also various circumstances such as the preparation process, type, content, and function of the document (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Do2226, Nov. 27, 199; Supreme Court Decision 2003Do759, Jul. 29, 2002).

B. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted and examined reveals the following facts.

(1) On January 14, 2013, the Defendant’s mother of the instant real estate completed the registration of ownership transfer due to inheritance in the name of Nonindicted Party 1. The Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer security on January 23, 2013 with respect to the instant real estate by borrowing money from Nonindicted Party 2, and the registration of ownership transfer security on February 6, 2013 with respect to the instant real estate.

(2) On January 201, 2013, prior to the registration of the establishment of the foregoing neighboring mortgage and the registration of the transfer of ownership security, the Defendant printed out a full certificate of the registered matters concerning the instant real estate inspected via the Internet (hereinafter “wholly registered matters prior to the amendment”). The Defendant borrowed money again from the end of August 2015 to offer it as security, and deleted and copied the perusal date at the bottom of the entire registered matters prior to the amendment as the corrected tape.

(3) On August 10, 2016, the Defendant borrowed money from Nonindicted 3, and issued a full certificate of registered matters (hereinafter “full certificate of registered matters after modification”) to which the Defendant collected and reproduced the date and time of inspection as above.

C. Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the Defendant’s act of reproducing the date and time of inspection of the entire registered matters by deleting the entire registered matters, constitutes the act of making a document with new probative value different from the rights and facts indicating the entire registered matters prior to the alteration, and thereby, it is deemed that there was a risk of undermining public trust. The specific reasons are

(1) The date and time of inspection of all the registered matters is to indicate the date and time of legal relationship on the register, and constitutes an important part in the verification of legal relationship or fact relations. In a case where the date and time of inspection are recorded, there is no indication of all the registered matters proving legal relationship on the basis of the date and time and the date and time of inspection, and there is a clear difference between the facts or probative value of the registered matters, which

(2) After the instant change, the entire certificate of registered matters is not indicated at the base point of time of legal relationship. It was presented and delivered to another person, and was used to verify false facts that the registration of establishment of a mortgage and the registration of transfer of ownership security did not exist with respect to the instant real estate at the time

(3) From the perspective of ordinary people, who are not experts in law or related fields, the average person’s ability to distinguish the matter from the perspective of ordinary people, it is difficult to deem that the modification of the instant case did not have the form and appearance of an official document to the extent that it can be easily recognized that the entire certificate of registered matters was deleted, even after examining the modification of the instant case with due care.

3. Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the alteration of official document, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and the prosecutor's ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

4. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Min You-sook (Presiding Justice)