[폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반등피고사건][고집1981(형특),54]
Whether the document, which is a copy, constitutes a document of objective chain in the crime of criminal law;
A simple copy reproduced by an electronic reproduction machine, and a copy of the original deed, which is not an object of which the intention of the preparing person is not indicated because there is no certification of a copy or a copy, shall not fall under a document which is the object of a crime concerning documents
Article 225 of the Criminal Act; Article 226 of the Criminal Act; Article 227 of the Criminal Act; Article 229 of the Criminal Act; Article 230 of the Criminal Act; Article 231 of the Criminal Act; Article 234 of the Criminal Act
Supreme Court Decision 77Do4068 delivered on April 11, 1978 (Supreme Court Decision 11808 delivered on April 11, 1978; Supreme Court Decision 26Nu74 delivered on June 26, 200; Decision 140 pages 140 delivered on April 1, 197, Court Gazette 585 delivered on July 27, 19762)
Defendant
Prosecutor and Defendant
Busan District Court Jinju Branch (80 Gohap122, 80 Gohap132(Consolidated))
All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.
The gist of the grounds of appeal No. 1 is that the judgment of the court below is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts affecting the conclusion of the judgment, and the summary of the grounds of appeal No. 2 is too unreasonable, and the sentencing of the court below is too inappropriate, and the sentencing of the court below is too inappropriate, and the sentencing of the court below is too inappropriate, and the summary of the grounds of appeal No. 2 is that the court below found the defendant not guilty on the grounds that the ship inspection certificate and the fishing vessel inspection certificate are merely a copy which has been copied to electronic copying machines or a copy which does not have a certification of a certified copy of a document under the Criminal Act, and they do not constitute a document which is the object of a crime concerning documents. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on documents, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
In light of the records, the court below's decision and records revealed that the ship inspection certificate of this case and the ship inspection certificate of this case were merely copied with an electronic reproduction machine, and they do not constitute documents which do not constitute the object of document crime because the copy or certified copy is not an object of document because the document's intent is not an object of document's preparation because the document's intent is not a copy or certified copy. In light of the records, the court below's determination that the evidence investigated and adopted by the court below is sufficient to acknowledge the criminal facts of the defendant which the court below found guilty, and there is no other evidence that the court below erred in fact-finding, and there is no other evidence that the court below
In addition, considering the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, intelligence, environment, motive, means, consequence, circumstances after the commission of the crime, and all other circumstances that are the conditions of the sentencing as shown in the proceedings and arguments, the sentencing of the lower court is not deemed to be reasonable, too heavy or unreasonable.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below is just, and since the appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor is groundless, it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.
Judges Yoon Young (Presiding Judge) Lee (Presiding Judge)