[허위공문서작성,허위공문서작성행사][공1990.12.1.(885),2345]
Whether the crime of preparing false official documents is established where the head of the Gun/Gu office obtains approval from the head of the Gun who is not aware of the fact by falsely stating the scheduled order of a specific person in the order of priority to issue private taxi licenses (affirmative)
If the head of the Gun office, who supported the head of the Gun in charge of personal taxi license affairs, etc., makes a false statement of the scheduled order of priority in the personal taxi license scheduled issuance order among the above public notice, and obtains approval from the head of the Gun without knowledge of such fact, the above list is prepared by a public official for the execution of his/her duties within his/her authority and completed documents, so the above act constitutes a crime of preparing false public documents.
Article 227 of the Criminal Act
[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellee)
Defendant
Defendant
Attorney Yong-young
Chuncheon District Court Decision 89No736 delivered on April 26, 1990
The appeal is dismissed.
We examine the defendant's defense counsel's grounds for appeal.
1. In light of the records, the evidence cited by the court of first instance, as cited by the court below, is sufficiently recognized as the facts of the judgment against the defendant, and there is no error of misconception of facts due to the violation of the rules of evidence such as the theory of the lawsuit in the process of evidence preparation, and there is no argument that there was no criminal intent as to
2. As determined by the court below, when Defendant 1, who supported the head of the regional economic division of the 1st Military Office, who was in charge of obtaining a license for private taxi, was able to obtain a license for private taxi normally as stated in the judgment of the court below in the draft "public notice on the career rating of an applicant for a license for private taxi" for 21 individuals within the same Gun, and when Non-Party 2 was unlikely to obtain a license for private taxi normally as stated in the judgment of the court below, Non-Party 1 entered the scheduled order in the list of the scheduled issuance of a license for private taxi in the above public notice into 4th order, 3th order, and obtained the approval of the head of the 1st military branch without knowledge of the fact, the scheduled order is a document prepared by a public official for performing his duties within his authority and completed the document. Thus, the court below's measure is just and there is no violation of law by misapprehending the legal principles on public documents, which are the objects of the preparation of a false public document.
In addition, as the issue points out, even if the above list of scheduled issuance of private taxi licenses is finally determined through the procedure of objection thereafter, such circumstance does not affect the establishment of the crime of preparation of false official documents in this case.
3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Yoon So-young (Presiding Justice)