[사문서위조,사문서위조행사][공1986.1.15.(768),179]
In the case of presentation of a copy of the above investigation document reproduced by mechanical method, the nature of the crime of uttering of the above investigation document
Even in case of a copy reproduced by mechanical method improved by photographic techniques, it is not based on the legal principles that should be seen as the original, and therefore, the copy of forged private documents cannot be deemed as constituting the crime of uttering of the above private document merely by presenting a copy of the forged private document, not by itself.
Article 234 of the Criminal Act
Supreme Court Decision 81Do2715 Decided November 26, 1969, 69Mo85 Decided December 22, 1981
Defendant
Prosecutor
Seoul Criminal Court Decision 85No2449 delivered on July 31, 1985
The appeal is dismissed.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
According to the court below's duly established reasoning, among the facts charged, the above real estate lease contract is not a forged real estate lease contract itself but a copy of a forged document which was presented by the defendant to a public official in the name and aesthetic sense of Guro Tax Office who submitted and used the forged real estate lease contract at around February 1, 1983, and it does not constitute a crime of uttering of the above investigation document under Article 234 of the Criminal Act. It is a consistent opinion of the party members (refer to Supreme Court Order 69Mo85 delivered on November 26, 1969; Supreme Court Decision 81Do2715 delivered on December 22, 1981, etc.). Since the copy of the document which has been reproduced by mechanical method improved as a copy of the copied technology, there is no ground to view it as the original document as the original, and there is no ground to appeal as to the misapprehension of legal principles as to the crime of document.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)