사문서위조등
The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.
1. On January 17, 2018, the Defendant: (a) at the office of “C” operated by the Defendant located in Gangnam-si, Gangnam-si; (b) made D, the Defendant’s wife, for the purpose of exercising the Defendant’s name, enter the name column and telephone number column of “E” and “F” as indicated in the former construction contract form; (c) “GH” in the resident registration number column; (d) “I apartment Jho-ho; (e) on the present address column, “I apartment J-ho; (e) December 1, 2017; and (e) on the delivery date column, “UVT (Haro)” in the product name column into the public service center; and (f) made D, as if he were aware of the fact of forgery of the contract price; and (f) made D, as if he were aware of the fact of forgery of the contract price payment form; and (f) made D, 200,300,000 won and 308,08.
Accordingly, for the purpose of exercising, the Defendant forged and exercised one copy of the construction contract in the name of G on the rights and obligations.
2. Determination
A. The crime of forging a private document is established when the form and appearance to the extent that the nominal person can see in writing the document actually prepared by the nominal person is sufficient to mislead the general public into the authentic private document of the nominal person. 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 mislead the document into the authentic private document of the nominal person should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the form and appearance of the document, as well as various circumstances such as the preparation process, type, content, and function of the document in general transaction.
Supreme Court Decision 88Do3 Decided March 22, 198, Supreme Court Decision 95Do2221 Decided December 26, 1997, Supreme Court Decision 2005Do2518 Decided September 14, 2006, and Supreme Court Decision 88Do3 Decided March 22, 198, Supreme Court Decision 2005Do2518 Decided September 14, 2006, etc.