The case reversing the judgment below which acquitted the defendant on the facts that the name and signature of the voters who received the voting papers up to 16 times of serial number, and the defendant signed and signed his name on the column No. 17 of the "No. 17 of the "No. 17 of the "No. Extraordinary Management Body's Voting Register" signed by Gap and Eul who is the person in charge of confirmation affairs after voting, and he submitted it to the court as evidentiary material, on the facts that the defendant changed the above ballot paper ledger, which is a private document under Gap and Eul, and submitted it as evidentiary material, on the ground that the court below reversed

Articles 231 and 234 of the Criminal Act

Defendant 1 and one other

Prosecutor

Law Firm Hannuri, Attorneys Lee 2 and 2 others

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2009No1401 Decided September 2, 2009

Of the judgment below, the part on Defendant 1’s alteration of private documents and the uttering of altered private documents is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Central District Court. The remaining appeals are dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to the defendants' forgery of private documents and the uttering of private investigation documents

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, it is justifiable for the court below to maintain the judgment of the court of first instance that acquitted the defendants of the facts charged for forging private documents of this case and the uttering of falsified documents, and it did not err by violating the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles on the crime of forging private documents.

2. As to the defendant 1's use of a private document, alteration and alteration of a private document

The summary of this part of the facts charged is that “Defendant 1 stated the name and signature of the voters who received the ballot papers up to serial No. 16, and Nonindicted 1 and 2 signed after the voting, on the serial number No. 17 of “The Provisional Assembly of the Management Body in 2008,” signed by Nonindicted 1 and 2, Defendant 1, and signed and used the above ballot paper register, which is a private document in the name of Nonindicted 1 and 2, and submitted it to the court as evidentiary materials.”

The court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance which acquitted the voters of this part of the charges on the ground that the signature portion of the previous voters is included in documents in the name of Non-Indicted 1 and 2 and the total number of voters is not “documents in the name of Non-Indicted 1 and 2” on the ground that the signature portion of Non-Indicted 1 and 2 is included in documents in the name of Non-Indicted 2 and the above voting paper register is not “documents in the name of Non-Indicted 1 and 2”, although the voting paper falls under a kind of life-sustaining document in the order of name, and although the paper was contained in the paper of one funeral, the part of the voters who signed it constitutes separate documents, and Non-Indicted 1 and 2 confirmed the voting procedure.

However, we cannot agree with the above judgment of the court below.

The voting ground chief is that the person in charge of the business of confirming the eligible voters and delivering the ballot papers to him has prepared the above confirmation service for the purpose of recording (i.e., there is no expression of intent that the voters form a legal relationship with a common will). In this case, the voting ground where Non-Indicted 1 and 2 completed his signature after confirming the fact that the 16 persons were finally in charge of such business and voting by means of a ballot paper, and then signing it. As such, the voting ground in which Non-Indicted 1 and 2 completed his signature is completed by independent document of Non-Indicted 1 and 2 with the function of proving the number of individual voters and the total number of voters, and the defendant's arbitrarily signed and signed in column 17 is harmful to the identity of the completed document, and thus the crime of altering private documents is established.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below acquitted the defendant on this part of the facts charged for the reasons as seen above is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the document character and preparing person in the above ballot paper ledger.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, among the judgment below, the part on Defendant 1’s alteration of private documents and the uttering of altered private documents shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. The prosecutor’s remaining appeal shall be dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)