[허위공문서작성,허위공문서작성행사][공1992.12.1.(933),3195]
A. Purport of Article 13(1) and (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Certification of Seal Imprint Act
(b) The circumstance that a public official in charge of the certificate of seal impression has been verified that he/she would obtain a certificate of seal impression through his/her agent when entered in the ledger of the certificate of seal impression and the certificate of seal impression as if he/she received a direct application or issuance (affirmative) and that the defendant was confirmed to have obtained a certificate of seal impression from
A. According to Article 13(1) and (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Certification of Seal Imprint Act, a certificate of seal imprint shall be applied for by either the applicant or his/her agent to the certification agency on his/her own, and the certification agency upon receipt of an application for the issuance of a certificate of seal imprint shall confirm whether the applicant is the applicant himself/herself or his/her agent, and shall issue a certificate of seal imprint upon receipt of a seal imprint certificate if the applicant is the applicant himself/herself or his/her agent, or after receipt of a seal imprint
B. If the head of the Myeon Office entered the name of the applicant for the issuance of a certificate of seal imprint and the issuance ledger of the certificate of seal imprint as if he/she was issued a direct application even though he/she did not have issued the certificate, such entry constitutes a crime of preparation of false official document. Although he/she was verified by his/her agent to have the certificate of seal imprint issued, it does not affect the establishment of the crime.
(b)Article 13 of the Enforcement Decree of the Certification of Seal Imprint:
B. Supreme Court Decision 85Do758 delivered on June 25, 1985 (Gong1985,1089)
A and one other
Defendants
Attorney B
Suwon District Court Decision 92No613 delivered on July 9, 1992
All appeals are dismissed.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
According to the evidence in the judgment of the court of first instance, the facts constituting the crime of this case against the defendants can be acknowledged. Therefore, there is no violation of the rules of evidence in the judgment of the court below.
According to Article 13(1) and (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Certification of Seal Imprint Act, a certificate of seal imprint shall be issued by either the applicant or his/her agent directly to the certification agency, and the certification agency upon receipt of an application for the issuance of a certificate of seal imprint shall confirm whether the applicant is the applicant himself/herself or his/her agent, and shall issue a certificate of seal imprint if the applicant is the applicant himself/herself, and shall obtain a seal imprint if the agent is the agent, and shall ensure the probative value of the certificate. Therefore, if the Defendants were entered in the register of seal imprint and the register of seal imprint as if they were directly withdrawn, even if Non-Party C was not directly withdrawn due to his/her request and issuance, it constitutes a crime of preparing false public document. Although the Defendants were verified by proxy, the establishment of the crime does not affect the conclusion of the crime.
In addition, the above actions by the Defendants become customary in the affairs of issuing the certificate of personal seal impression, or they do not violate the social rules.
The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just and there is no violation of law as otherwise pointed out.
The argument is without merit.
Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)