An indirect offense committed by preparing a certificate of sale of land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay and preparing false public documents, based on false draft documents proposed by the local administrative assistant;

If a local administrative assistant who assists in the adjustment of land in the market makes a false entry in a document prepared by the local administrative assistant for the purpose of exercising his duties, and makes the general secretary and the staff who may know of the fact make the market official seal to prepare the documents in the name of the market, an indirect crime of preparation of false public documents is established.

Articles 34 and 227 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 4293Do297 delivered on May 17, 1962, 63Do138 delivered on June 20, 1963

Defendant

Defendant

Gwangju High Court Decision 82No955 delivered on April 28, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.

In full view of the evidence of the first instance court maintained by the court below, the defendant prepared a certificate of sale of land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay and a certificate of sale in which false facts are stated in the documents prepared for the purpose of exercising as a local administrative assistant assistant to assist the rearrangement of land in the Gwangju City market, and made the general secretary and the staff of the company who knows such facts at the market by suppressing the market official. The defendant's so-called "indirect principal" was examined by comparing the court below's records with the records of the crime of preparation of false public documents (see Supreme Court Decision 4293Do297 delivered on May 17, 1962; 63Do138 delivered on June 20, 1963). There is no illegality of misunderstanding of legal principles as to preparation of false public documents.

In addition, in this case where imprisonment for less than 10 years has been imposed since the first instance court, the reason for the imposition of sentence is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Jong-young (Presiding Justice)