Whether exercising a certificate of personal seal impression against the intent of the nominal owner constitutes an unlawful uttering of official documents, etc. (negative)

The crime of unlawful uttering of official documents, etc. is established only where, as if the licensee and the purpose of use are specified, a person who has no right to use the official documents, or a person who has no right to use the official documents, made out with the specified purpose, for an improper purpose, or a person who has the right to use them, exercises them unlawfully against the legitimate purpose of use. Thus, the crime of unlawful uttering of official documents, etc. is not established unless the licensee is specified as the certificate of the personal seal impression, and the purpose of use of various official documents is exercised without permission contrary to the intent of the nominal owner.

Article 230 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 73Do1695 delivered on July 9, 1974; 81Do130 Delivered on December 8, 1981

Defendant

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 82No880 decided June 25, 1982

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the Defendant’s ground of appeal ex officio.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, among the facts charged in this case against the defendant, the court below committed an unlawful uttering of official document by applying Article 230 of the Criminal Act on the following facts: "The defendant, among the facts charged in this case against the defendant, presented one copy of the certificate of personal seal impression in the name of the non-indicted No. 1 in the name of the head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Dong branch office in Seongbuk-gu Seoul, which was issued by the non-indicted 1 to the non-indicted No. 28 on August 28, 1980 when the non-indicted 1 went to her husband.

However, the crime of unlawful uttering of official documents under Article 230 of the Criminal Act shall be established only where the licensee and the person who did not have the right to use the official documents or official documents prepared with specified purposes makes it fraudulent as if they were the licensee and the right to use them, or the person who has the right to use them, uses them unjustly against the legitimate usage. It does not specify the licensee as the certificate of the seal impression, and various official documents are used for the purpose of use, even if they are exercised without permission against the intent of the nominal owner, if they are in accord with the original purpose of the document, they do not constitute the crime (see each Decision 73Do1695, Jul. 9, 1974; 81Do130, Dec. 8, 1981). According to the records and the first instance judgment, the certificate of the seal in this case is issued for notarial purposes (202 pages) and used for the certificate of the official document in this case.

Therefore, although the above act cannot be established as a crime of unlawful uttering of official document, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the crime of unlawful uttering of official document, and since the crime of unlawful uttering of official document is in the relation of substantive concurrent crimes with other crimes which the court below found guilty, the judgment of the court below shall not be reversed in its entirety without making a decision as to

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kang Jong-young (Presiding Justice)