Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Residential Village 0

Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Yangpo-dong 5O

2. 김○○ ( ■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ), 무직

Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Residential Village 0

Reference domicile Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government ○

3. 전○○ ( ■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ), 무직

Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Residential Village 0

Heading City/Dong Do 00

4. 소○○ ( ■■ ■ ■■■■ ), 무직

Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Residential Village 0

Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Masan-dong 00

5. 가○○ ( ■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ), 무직

Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Residential Village 0

Reference domicile Dog-ri, Cheongnam-gun, Dag-ri, 00

6. 서○○ ( ■■■■■■■■■■ ), 무직

Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Residential Village 0

Bupyeong-gu Incheon Bupyeong-dong 00

7. 송○○ ( ■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ), 무직

Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Residential Village 0

Dok-ri, Gyeongnam-gu, Gyeongnam-ri, Dok-ri

8. 유○○ ( ■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ), 주부

Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Residential Village 0

Seoldong 00, Seoldong 00

9. 신○○ ( ■■■■■■■■■■■ ), 무직

Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Residential Village 0

[Attachment] Geum-nam, Chungcheongnam-gun, Gyeong-ri, Ma-ri, ○

Defendants are not guilty.

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

The public notice of this case written by the Defendants cannot be punished for the crime of forging documents since it did not have the form and appearance that can be perceived as a document under the name of the Director of the Korea University. The Defendants did not have the intent to forge a publicly recruited document.

B. Unreasonable sentencing

The sentence of the lower court (Defendant New○○: fine of KRW 300,00,000, and fine of KRW 200,000 for the remaining Defendants) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The summary of the primary facts charged (the prosecutor, at the trial of the court below, the charge of forging the private document which is subject to the judgment of the court below as the primary facts charged. The following facts charged were added to the charge of forging the private document and the charge of the exercise of the above investigation, which is a private person, and the subject of the judgment was added by this court's permission.) Defendant New○ is the representative representative council of residents in Gangseo-gu, Seoul, etc., and Defendant Kim○ is the vice-chairperson of the above representative representative representative council. Defendant Jeon○○ is the representative representative director of the above representative representative council. Defendant ○○○ is the representative director of the above representative representative council. Defendant ○○ is the representative director of the above representative representative representative, Defendant ○○ is the representative director of the above representative representative representative council. Defendant ○○ is the representative director of the above representative representative, Defendant ○○, and Defendant ○,

The Defendants confirmed that he did not graduate from the Korea University through a letter of reply to academic background inquiry, which was made in the name of the President of the Korea University of Education. On January 14, 2008, the Defendants knew about the false academic background of ○○○, which was gathered from the house of the Defendant New○○○, of the above apartment, in the form of a written public announcement to the apartment residents, but, in order to enhance the reliability of such public announcement, the Minister of Education of the Korea University of University in the written public announcement

By indicating the official seal of the name, the public notice, which is a private document concerning a certificate of fact, was recruited to forge it.

Defendant ○○○ was elected as the 103 representative representatives at the last election of the 103 representative representatives at the Korea University. As a result of the confirmation, it was confirmed that the above facts were false. It was confirmed as the 1767 School Confirmation Team No. 1767 ( September 6, 2007) of Korea University’s School Confirmation Team No. 1767 ( September 6, 2007). As a result, it was confirmed to be the 103 representative representative representative, it was known that the 103 representative representative was disqualified, and publicly announced. On January 15, 2008, ○○○○○○ was known to be the 1st representative of the Dong University’s residents, ○○○○○○○, ○○○○○, the head, ○○○○, ○○○○, Advisor○○, ○○○○, ○○○○, ○○○○○, and ○○○○, after stating the facts on the site.

After copying the official seal of the principal of the principal of the school affairs affixed to a reply to academic background inquiry in the name, it was affixed to the official seal of the principal of the school affairs, and then re-printed it. The Defendants forged the public notice, which is a private document concerning the certification of facts under the name of the principal of the Korea University of University, by affixing their official seal on each side of their own names.

On January 15, 2008, Defendant 1, 2008, ○○○ and ○○○, upon the above public offering with the Defendants, posted a forged public notice on each of the above bulletin boards from 101 to 110 units of apartment buildings, thereby exercising this.

B. Determination

The crime of forging a private document is established when the form and appearance to the extent that the nominal owner can regard it as a document genuinely prepared by the nominal owner is sufficient to mislead the general public in the real private document of the nominal owner. However, whether it is sufficient for the general public to mislead the document in the real private document of the nominal owner should be determined by taking into account all the circumstances, including the preparation process, type, content, and function of the document, as well as the form and appearance of the document (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do2518, Sept. 14, 2006, etc.).

이 사건에서 살피건대, 이 사건 공고문의 기재내용 및 형상 등 이 사건 기록에 의하여 인정되는 다음의 사정 즉, ① 이 사건 공고문에는 제목이 " 공고 제08 - 1호 " 라고 기재되어 있고 " 주민여러분댁내 대안하시기를 삼가 기원 올리는 바입니다 ", " 상기인은 고려대학교 가정과를 졸업하였다고 하며 지난번 동대표 선거에서 103동 동대표로 당선되었고 현재 자칭 동대표 총무라고 모든 단지 일에 앞장서고 있습니다 ", " 이로 인하여 안○○씨는 103동 동대표로서 자격 상실 되었음을 주민께 알려 드리오며 공고하는 바입니다 " 라고 기재되어 있어 등촌동 주공아파트 1단지 주민대표회가 아파트 주민들에게 안○○의 자격 상실에 대해 알리는 내용으로 되어 있는 점, ② 위 공고문의 내용에는 " 고려대학교 확인증명 학적팀 1767호 ( 2007. 9. 6. ) 자 교무처장 회신으로 확인되었습니다 " 라고 인용되어 있어 위 공고문의 작성 주체가 고려대학교 교무처장이 될 수 없다는 사정 역시 인식되는 점, ③ 위 공고문의 끝에는 " 주공1단지 주민대표회 " 라고 기재되어 위 아파트 동대표회의 직인이 찍혀 있고, 위 주민대표회의 회장, 부회장 등 직책 옆에 피고인들의 기명 및 날인이 되어 있는 점, ④ 고려대학교 교무처장의 표시 및 그 직인은 위 공고문의 내용에 비추어 볼 때 고려대학교 교무처장으로부터 회신을 받았다는 공고문의 내용부분을 입증하는 취지로 충분히 이해될 수 있는 점 등을 종합하면, 피고인들이 작성, 게시한 이 사건 공고문의 의사표명의 주체가 되는 명의인은 위 아파트 주민대표회라고 봄이 타당하고, 위 공고문이 고려대학교 교무처장이 작성한 문서로 볼 수 있을 정도의 형식과 외관을 갖추어 일반인이 이를 위 교무처장 명의의 문서로 오신하기에 충분한 정도에 이르렀다고 볼 수 없고, 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없다 .

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the primary facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and thus, the Defendants’ assertion on this point

3. Conclusion

Therefore, as the appeal by the Defendants is without merit to determine the remaining arguments, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the appeal is again decided as follows.

Judgment on the primary facts charged

The summary of the facts charged in this case is the same as that of Article 2-1 (a) and Article 2-2-2 (b). As seen in this case, the facts charged in this case constitutes a case where there is no proof of facts constituting a crime, and thus, a judgment of innocence is rendered pursuant to the latter part of Article

Judgment on the ancillary charges

1. Summary of the ancillary charge

As above, the Defendants confirmed that he did not graduate from the Korea University through a letter of reply to academic background inquiry held in the name of the President of the Korea University. On January 14, 2008, at the house of ○○○○○○○○, Dong-dong, Gangseo-gu, Seoul, and the Defendant’s New University, the Defendants informed the apartment residents of the false academic background of ○○○○ at the house of ○○○○, which was gathered in the form of a written public announcement. In order to enhance the credibility of the public announcement, the Defendants conspired to forge the official seal of the President of the Korea University, a private person, by expressing the official seal in the name of the President of the Korea University, in the written public announcement. Defendant New○○, “Public announcement,” (○○○) graduated from the Korea University, was elected from the Korea University, and was confirmed to have been elected as 103 representative from the past representative election. As a result of confirmation, this was confirmed to have been disqualified as a resident representative of 1767 (No. 3, 2007.6.6).

On January 15, 2008, the representative of the principal of the Jeju Industrial Complex, the president of the New○○○○○, the vice president Kim○○, the chief of the department, the secretary general, the adviser ○○○○○○, the adviser ○○○○○, the Song○○○, the Kim○○, and the UO stated “each,” and copied the official seal of the Minister under the name of the principal of the principal of the school affairs affixed to the academic background inquiry and reply of the name of the principal of the Korea University under the name of the principal of the Korea University University, and affixed it to the public notice, and copied it again. The Defendants affixed the official seal on each of their own names and forged the official seal of the principal of the Korea University Department of the principal of the Korea University.

On January 15, 2008, Defendant 1, 2008, ○○○○ and ○○○ had the official seal of the principal of the Korea University, a private principal who forged by posting the above public notice on each bulletin board from 101 to 110 units of the above apartment building in accordance with the above public invitation with the Defendants.

2. Determination

As seen earlier, in light of the contents of the public announcement of this case, it is reasonable to view that the title holder, who is the subject of the title holder of the said public announcement, is the representative of the above apartment building, and the above public announcement does not contain any content that is deemed the name of the principal of the faculty member of the Korea University, and in light of the overall purport of the above public announcement, the form of the official seal appears to have been printed to support that the above public announcement did not indicate that the title holder of the said public announcement was present to indicate that he was the principal of the faculty member of the Korea University. In full view of the fact that even if the official seal of the principal of the Korea University is printed without authority, even if the above public official seal of the principal of the faculty member of the Korea University was printed without the authority, it cannot be deemed that the Defendants were present in order to pretend that the above official seal was a legitimate seal of the principal of the Korea University Department of University, or that there was no intention to exercise the said official seal by forging it, and there is no evidence to

Thus, since the ancillary facts of this case also constitute a case where there is no proof of criminal facts, it should be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as long as not guilty is pronounced as to the primary facts of a crime related to the crime, the judgment of innocence shall not be rendered separately.

Judges Ho Sung-ho

Judges Adjusted