Whether the electronic copy of the altered private document has been used and whether the crime of uttering of the altered private document has been established

If a copy of an altered private document itself is used for another person rather than the submission itself of the altered private document itself, it does not constitute the crime of uttering of the altered private document.

Articles 234 and 231 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Defendant

Busan District Court (72 Gohap936)

We reverse the original judgment.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

The forty-five days of detention days prior to the pronouncement of the original judgment shall be included in the original sentence.

Not guilty on the exercise of altered private documents

The court below's ground for appeal is sufficient to recognize the defendant's each crime of altering official documents under paragraph (1) of the same Article, alteration of official documents under paragraph (2) of the same Article, alteration of private documents under paragraph (3) of the same Article, and alteration of official documents under paragraph (3) of the same Article, as recognized by the court below, and the defendant's appeal that there was no error of misconception of facts and violation of rules of evidence, and that there was an error of finding facts as to this part of the documents under the above provision of paragraph (1) of the same Article, and that there was no error of finding of facts and the alteration of documents under paragraph (1) of the same Article, and that there was no error of finding of facts as to this part of the documents under the above provision of paragraph (7) of the same Article, or that there was no error of using the altered documents under the name of the head office of the above 8-1, 200, Busan District Court's 8-1,000 original cadastral map which had been submitted in the cadastral map of the same paragraph (3) of the above.

Therefore, since the altered private document does not directly submit it to another person and only uses a copy of the altered private document, the fact alone does not constitute the exercise of the altered private document, the judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty is improper and the decision of the court below is reversed and the decision of the court below is to be rendered again.

If the court below excludes the witness Nonindicted 1, 2, etc., who was prepared by the judicial police officer's handling of affairs and the defendant's testimony in the trial process, as evidence, regarding the facts constituting the crime against the defendant, it is identical to that of the court below, and therefore, it is cited as it is in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Article 229, Article 225 of the Criminal Act provides that the alteration of official document No. 1 at the time of original adjudication in the court below's holding that the alteration of official document No. 3 at the time of original adjudication is a concurrent crime under Article 231 of the same Act, since Article 38 (1) 2 and Article 50 of the same Act provides that the alteration of private document No. 2 at the time of original adjudication is a concurrent crime under Article 38 (1) 2 of the same Act, and Article 38 (1) 2 of the same Act provides that the punishment shall be imposed when the punishment is concurrent crimes under Article 38 (1) 2 of the same Act, and Article 50 of the same Act provides that the defendant is the first offender, and the defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for the convenience of Nonindicted 3, who kept in close friendly mind, and the motive and crime that led to the alteration of the official document No. 3 at the time of original adjudication shall be considered as the attitude to make the statement, and all circumstances shall be taken into consideration within the period of imprisonment No. 553. 5.

On July 19, 1972, the defendant issued a modified private document to the public official in charge of the use of the altered private document at the Dong-gu's public service center located in the Dong-gu Office in Busan, Dong-gu, Busan, the defendant presented a written application for a construction permission to the public official in charge of the use of the altered private document with a copy of the cadastral map, which is a private document altered, along with the revised copy of the original copy. As mentioned above, it is nothing more than the altered private document itself, and it is obvious that the copy was used as an electronic copy, and the facts charged were prosecuted for the use of the copy as a crime of uttering of the altered private document. Thus, this is an act that cannot be inquired as a crime of uttering of the altered private document, and thus, the defendant's case constitutes a case that does not constitute a crime, and thus,

It is so decided as per Disposition with the above reasons.

Judges Lee Yong-su (Presiding Judge)