(b) Alteration of private documents;

(c) Exercising altered private documents;

(d) Defamation;

Attorney C, D

1. Of the facts charged against Defendant on August 28, 201, the summary of the crime of altering private documents and uttering of private documents as of August 28, 2017 are as follows:

Defendant around June 202, 202: (a) the recipient of the tax invoice issued by E Co., Ltd. in F Co., Ltd. on April 10, 2002; (b) the portion of “G” out of the portion of “trade name (name)F and name G” as recorded in F Co., Ltd.; (c) entered “H” on the same page; and (d) altered the tax invoice in the name of E Co., Ltd. by means of a copy; and (d) the Defendant, in collusion with Co-Defendant I of the first instance trial on August 28, 2017, performed the altered private document by submitting it to the judge in charge of civil litigation instituted against this J.

2. The first instance court and the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that the act of re-afusing the altered portion in the altered private document constitutes the crime of altering the private document.

3. “Alteration” in the crime of altering private documents means that a person who is not authorized to alter the content of a document duly formed, to the extent that the identity of the document does not be undermined, and the part altered by a person who is not authorized to do so cannot be said to have been duly formed. Therefore, even if the content of the document was modified by a non-authorized person without authority, the crime of altering private documents is not established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do15206, Sept. 27, 2012).

4. We examine in light of the above legal principles. The defendant, without authority around June 2002, altered the tax invoice under the name of the E Co., Ltd. by means of removing the G and recording the “H” from among the tax invoice under the name of the E Co., Ltd., and thus, the altered “H” cannot be deemed as a document duly formed. Therefore, even if the defendant arbitrarily deleted the part “H” as described in the above public prosecution, the alteration of the private document is not established. The lower court determined that the alteration of the private document was erroneous by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the alteration of the indictment.

5. Therefore, among the judgment of the original court on August 28, 2017, the part concerning the crime of altering private documents and uttering of private documents as of August 28, 2017 should be reversed for the foregoing reasons. However, the above reversed part is in a concurrent relationship with the remaining part found guilty among the judgment below and the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Accordingly, the judgment of the lower court

Therefore, without examining the grounds for appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is reviewed again.

- The case is remanded to the lower court for determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Kwon Soon-il

Justices Lee Ki-taik

Justices Kim Jong-soo