[사기·위조사문서행사·무고][공2008하,996]
Whether “other person’s credit information” under Article 27(1) of the Use and Protection of Credit Information Act includes not only an individual but also an enterprise and a corporation’s credit information (affirmative)
According to the laws and regulations on the use and protection of credit information, “credit information” means information necessary to determine the identity, credit rating, credit transaction capacity, etc. of the transaction partner in commercial transactions, including financial transactions. Information by which a certain owner of credit information can be identified, such as the name, address, resident registration number (in cases of a foreigner, an alien registration number or passport number), gender, nationality, occupation, etc. of an individual and the trade name, corporation registration number, business registration number, business number, head office and place of business of an enterprise and corporation, the location, establishment date, purpose, and matters concerning officers, etc., is combined with the remaining credit information. In addition, “credit information of a third party” under Article 27(1) of the Use and Protection of Credit Information Act that prohibits the disclosure of credit information, such as credit information by an
Article 27(1) of the Use and Protection of Credit Information Act; Article 2(1)1 through 6 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Use and Protection of Credit Information Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18832 of May 26, 2005); Article 2 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Use and Protection of Credit Information Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 875 of March 3, 2008)
Defendant
Prosecutor
Busan District Court Decision 2005No4073 Decided July 21, 2006
The non-guilty part of the judgment of the court below concerning the guilty part and non-guilty part shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to Busan District Court Panel Division. The remaining grounds of appeal shall be dismissed.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to each fraud, the uttering of a memorial document on August 2002 to the Haman
Examining the judgment of the court below in light of the records, it is proper for the court below to reverse the judgment of the court of first instance that found the defendant guilty of each of the above facts charged on the grounds that it is difficult to believe the defendant's statements by the victims, non-indicted 1, and non-indicted 2, etc., who correspond to each of the above facts charged and there is no other proof, and to find the defendant not guilty of the facts charged as to each of the above facts charged, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence and misapprehension of legal principles
2. As to the non-appeal
The lower court determined that, by interpreting Article 27(1) of the Credit Information Use and Protection Act (hereinafter “Credit Information Act”), the Defendant’s act stated in the facts charged in the instant accusation does not constitute an offense of false accusation on the ground that the Defendant’s false information reported by the Defendant does not constitute an offense of false accusation on the ground that it does not constitute an offense of false accusation.
However, it is difficult to accept such judgment of the court below for the following reasons.
According to Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Credit Information Act, Article 2 (1) 1 through 6 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Credit Information Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 18832 of May 26, 2005) and Article 2 (1) through (3) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Credit Information Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 875 of March 3, 2008), "credit information" means information necessary to determine the identity, credit rating, and credit transaction capacity of the other party in commercial transactions, such as financial transactions, and the name, address, resident registration number (foreign registration number or passport number in case of a foreigner), corporation, corporate registration number, head office, and occupation of the company and corporation, and the trade name, corporate registration number, establishment date, and purpose of the place of business, and matters concerning officers, etc., are combined with the remaining credit information and thus, the "credit Information Company" and "person who was entrusted with credit information business" under Article 2 (1) 2 of the Credit Information Act shall not be identified by the other party or person entrusted with credit information.
Therefore, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the establishment of a false accusation by interpreting "the credit information of another person" under Article 27 (1) of the Credit Information Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.
3. As to the forgery of private documents, and the uttering of private documents around November 11, 2002
The prosecutor filed a petition of appeal and stated that the appeal is to be filed against the entire judgment of the court below. However, on August 2002, the appellate brief only submitted the grounds of appeal as to the fraud as seen earlier, the uttering of the above investigation document, and the use of the above investigation document, which constitutes a separate crime, and on November 11, 2002, did not submit the grounds of appeal.
4. Conclusion
Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant as to the non-guilty charges shall not be reversed, and since the crime which the court below found the defendant guilty and the not guilty guilty is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and the prosecutor appealed to the whole judgment of the court below, the part of the judgment of the court below as to
Therefore, the non-guilty part of the judgment of the court below as to the guilty part and the non-guilty part is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below, and the remaining appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent
Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)