공문서위조
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. The case where the F resident registration certificate of F was forged by the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles) is forged by B, and there was no conspiracy by the Defendant.
The mere fact that a forged resident registration certificate was known and intended to receive it cannot be seen as a functional control over the above Article of the resident registration certificate.
2. Determination
A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case and Defendant B, around September 2014, conspired to use the F resident registration certificate in employment after forging the F resident registration certificate in the name of F, Korean, by attaching B a photograph instead of the above F photograph, to the resident registration certificate in the name of F, Korean, for employment, such as a duty-free shop in the Republic of Korea of China.
Pursuant to the above public offering on October 2014, B, for the purpose of exercising in China, sent by mail the F’s resident registration certificate in the name of F borrowed from the above F and the verification photographs of B, and then sent the name column “F”, “G” in the resident registration number column, and address column “Seoul Mapo-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City,” in the name column, in a manner that is not recognizable through the above false name boxes.
H. 403, “403 May 30, 2014,” and “head of Mapo-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City,” written in the Issuing Authorities column, and attached B’s photograph in the photo column.
Accordingly, the defendant and B forged the resident registration certificate under the name of the head of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, which is an official document, for the purpose of uttering in collusion.
B. The lower court determined that the Defendant conspiredd to commit the crime of forging the resident registration certificate as stated in the facts charged by the prosecutor.
The judgment of conviction was found.
(c)
1) The joint principal offender under Article 30 of the Criminal Code is jointly punished by more than two persons. In order for a joint principal offender to be established, the fact that the crime is committed through functional control based on the intention and objective requirements of the joint principal offender is necessary as a subjective requirement.
c)joint processing;