Whether a person who is not a public official can become an indirect offender in the preparation of a false public document

Article 228 of the Criminal Act provides for punishing the preparation of a false official document by indirect crimes, and provides for the punishment to the effect that the punishment is somewhat less exceptionally than that of Article 227 of the same Act, and in a case where a person who is not a public official becomes an indirect offender in the preparation of a false official document, it shall not be punished except in the case of Article 228 of the Criminal Act.

Articles 34, 228, and 227 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 4294Do645 delivered on December 14, 1961 (Kakad 5746; Supreme Court Decision 9Do193 delivered on April 26, 1962; Article 227 (2) 1300 delivered on April 12, 1962 (Supreme Court Decision 4294Do646 delivered on April 26, 197, Article 227 (3) of the Criminal Act; Article 254 (14) 1428 delivered on July 28, 1970; Supreme Court Decision 70Do1044 delivered on July 28, 1970; Supreme Court Decision 18Do65 delivered on July 18, 198; Decision 227Do1302 delivered on April 26, 197; Decision 7025Do29389 delivered on March 239, 203).

Defendant

Prosecutor

Daegu District Court of First Instance (64 High Court Decision 5655, 65 High Court Decision 669)

Supreme Court Decision 70Do1044 Delivered on July 28, 1970

The appeal is dismissed.

The gist of the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor against the defendant should be reversed because the court below erred by misunderstanding the legal principles. Thus, as recognized by the court below, even if the court below did not recognize the facts charged, the term "facing of public document" means a so-called type forgery in which a person who is not authorized to prepare for the purpose of uttering prepares documents or drawings in the name of a public official or a public office, and if a public official who is not aware of the fact is likely to conceal false facts and let him prepare a false public document, such acts do not constitute the forgery of public document, but constitute the preparation of a false public document by indirect crimes.

Thus, this case's indictment is deemed as the preparation of a false public document by indirect crimes, not in their own, but rather, the issue of whether this case's indictment constitutes a crime. Furthermore, considering that the provision punishing the preparation of a false public document by indirect crimes under Article 228 of the Criminal Act provides for punishment for the preparation of a false public document by indirect crimes, and that the punishment is somewhat less exceptionally than that provided for in Article 227 of the same Act, it does not constitute a crime unless it falls under the grounds provided for in Article 228 of the same Act.

Therefore, the preparation of a false official document against the defendant does not fall under Article 228 of the Criminal Act, so it does not constitute a crime. Therefore, the fact that the event is not a crime. Therefore, there is no misapprehension of legal principles in the judgment below to this purport, and it cannot be accepted without any justifiable reason, and this appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jae-ho (Presiding Judge)