[공문서위조·동행사·공무원자격사칭·공갈미수피고사건][고집1975형,268]
Whether an official document in appearance is the object of the crime of forging an official document.
Even if a forged document, such as a forged document, is not actually used by a public office, if the public official has the form and appearance to believe that it is prepared within his/her official authority, it would be the object of the crime of forging a forged public document.
Article 225 of the Criminal Act
Supreme Court Decision 67Do264 delivered on April 4, 1967 (Supreme Court Decision 3601Da 3601 delivered on September 17, 1968, Article 225 (15) 129 of the Criminal Act (Supreme Court Decision 3474 delivered on September 17, 1968, Supreme Court Decision 16Do1570 delivered on January 21, 1969 (Supreme Court Decision 68Do1570 delivered on January 21, 1969, Supreme Court Decision 17Do19 delivered on July 76, 196, Supreme Court Decision 225 (17) 1299 of the Criminal Act)
Defendant
Prosecutor and Defendant
Seongbuk-gu Seoul District Court Decision 75Gohap7,57 decided May 1, 198
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.
The ninety-five days of detention days prior to the pronouncement of the judgment of the court below shall be included in the original sentence.
Three copies (No. 1) of the report on the standard of seizure and one (No. 3) of the defendant's office shall be confiscated.
The summary of the grounds for appeal by the defendant is as follows: first, the defendant does not forge three copies (No. 1) of the standard investigation report on the judgment of the court below, and even if the defendant forged it, the above document is not used by any government office, so it does not constitute a crime of forging public documents. Even though the court below recognized the defendant as a crime of forging public documents, the court below erred by mistake of facts or violation of law, and second, the judgment of the court below is too unreasonable because the judgment of the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable. The summary of the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor is that the judgment of the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.
Therefore, in full view of the evidence duly admitted by the court below as to the first ground for appeal by the defendant, since the defendant can sufficiently recognize the facts of forging three copies of this case-based investigation report, the argument of mistake of facts is without merit. If the forged document has the form and appearance that can be believed to have been prepared within the official document or the official authority of the public official, even if such document is not used by the public office, it is the legal principle that the crime of forging public documents should be constituted. In this case, the above excessive standard investigation report is apparent in light of the contents of the statement by the police of the non-indicted 1, who is not an official document used in the Domine book (27). However, the above falsified document has the form and appearance that can be believed to have been prepared within the official authority of the director of the Domine Tax Office, so it is obvious by the document itself (No. 1) and it is also groundless to assert the violation of the above law.
Then, in light of the following circumstances as to the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor, the defendant's age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, criminal records, motive, means and results of the crime in this case, relationship with the victim, circumstances after the crime, etc., the judgment of the court below on the defendant's punishment is too uneasible and unfair. Thus, without making a judgment on the second ground for appeal by the defendant, the prosecutor's appeal is reasonable. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below cannot be reversed.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and a party member is decided again after pleading.
The criminal facts of the defendant recognized as a party member and the summary of the evidence are as shown in each corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, and all of them are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act provides that a person shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for each prescribed period of time, Article 225 of the Criminal Act, Article 225 of the same Act, Article 225 of the same Act, Article 229 and Article 225 of the same Act, Article 118 of the same Act, while Article 352 and Article 350 (1) of the same Act provides that a person shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for the crimes of fraud, qualification as a public official, and attempted crimes. Article 357 of the same Act provides that a person shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for each prescribed period of time, Article 35 of the same Act, and Article 35 of the same Act provides that a person shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for the crimes of fraud, Article 357 of the same Act, and Article 37 of the same Act provides that a person who commits a repeated crime shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for the same period of time and Article 48 of the same Act.
It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.
Judges Hong Man Pung (Presiding Judge)