(a) Preparation of a document in the name of the deceased whose survival date is the date of preparation, and fabrication of a private document;

(b) The so-called "collection and acquisition of claims by deceiving a creditor with a consent to collection of claims, and the nature of fraud;

(c) Receiving and keeping collected bills, and keeping another's property in embezzlement;

(d) “Discretionary gue” means a speech or defamation against a deceased person who has escaped or died due to damage;

A. In preparing a document in the name of a deceased person, if the date on which the document was prepared, as if the deceased was obtained the seal from the wife of the deceased and prepared at the time of his/her survival, is not deemed to have obtained the consent of the person who prepared the document, and thus, constitutes a crime of forging a private document.

B. If the collection of a debt with the consent to the collection of the debt by deceiving the creditor, such collection of the debt, was acquired, it shall be deemed an act of disposal of property based on mistake of the creditor, which constitutes a crime of fraud.

(c) Where collection request of a promissory note is received and kept, it shall be limited to the custody of other's property which is the constituent element of embezzlement.

D. Since the crime of defamation against a deceased person is protected by the law as a legal interest to protect the social and historical assessment of a deceased person, a statement of fact as a constituent element is required to be false, and thus, it is deemed that the defendant, knowing the death of the deceased, is not a death but a damage to a deceased person’s reputation as an act of openly expressing false facts.

(a) Article 231(b) of the Criminal Act; Article 347(c) of the Act; Article 355(1)(d) of the Act;

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Lee Young-con et al.

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 82No6676, 83No802 decided May 18, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The 110 days of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence.

The defendant and his defense counsel's grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate brief, since the additional appellate brief of the defendant goes after the deadline for submission expires).

1. As to the allegation that the judgment of the court below contains an error of law due to violation of the rules of evidence and incomplete hearing

In comparison with the records at the time of the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the measures that the court below recognized all criminal facts at the time of the original trial against the defendant are just and there is no error of law due to violation of the rules of evidence or misconception of facts due to insufficient deliberation, such as the theory of lawsuit in the process of fact-finding, and the records show that the defendant recognized the authenticity of the prosecutor's questioning document on the defendant prepared by the prosecutor on the trial date and there is no evidence to suspect

2. Regarding the assertion that there was an error of misunderstanding the legal principles as to the crime of forging a private document in the judgment of the court below, in preparing a document in the name of the deceased, if the date of preparation of the document is prepared retroactively from the date of the survival of the nominal owner as if the seal of the deceased was obtained from the wife of the deceased and the date of preparation of the document was prepared at the time of his survival, it cannot be deemed that there was the consent of the person who prepared the document. In this regard, the judgment of the court below that one fact at the time of original adjudication constitutes the crime of forging

3. Regarding the assertion that there is an error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to fraud, the judgment of the court below is just and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to fraud, and if the creditor has collected and acquired the debt with his consent to collect the debt, it shall be deemed an act of disposal of property based on the mistake of the creditor. Therefore, this constitutes fraud. In this regard, the judgment of the court below which held that the fact nine at the time of original judgment constitutes fraud is not unlawful, such as

4. As to the assertion that the lower court erred in the misapprehension of the legal doctrine of embezzlement, the lower court is justified in taking measures that the lower court recognized the custody of another person’s property while receiving a request for collection of the amount of promissory notes and receiving the said amount, and there is no illegality such as the theory of lawsuit.

5. As to the assertion that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on defamation of a deceased person

Since defamation of a deceased person under Article 308 of the Criminal Code is protected by the social and historical assessment of a deceased person, a statement of fact as a constituent element is required to be a false fact, so the defendant's act of publicly alleging false facts is not a death with knowledge of the death of a deceased person, but an action of publicly alleging false facts is deemed to have been committed as a crime of defamation of a deceased person, and therefore there is no error of law like the theory of lawsuit in the court below, which decided that the defendant's act of publicly alleging false facts as a bad

6. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges on the bench that one hundred andten days of detention after the appeal shall be included in the principal sentence.

Justices Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)