In the criminal procedure, the burden of proof of the crime (=public prosecutor) and the degree of proof for conviction

Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 92Do3327 Decided March 23, 1993 (Gong1993Sang, 1333), Supreme Court Decision 2007Do163 Decided November 30, 2007, Supreme Court Decision 2012Do6522 Decided August 23, 2012

Defendant

Defendant

Law Firm Hank, Attorneys Kim Jong-soo et al.

Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2012No354 decided June 22, 2012

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul Southern District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the aiding and abetting Official Documents

A. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the gist of the article’s article’s article’s text is as follows: (a) the Defendant asked the above-known person to forge a certificate of import item of medical device via the Internet on May 2008; and (b) the above-known person, using the computer, forged the article’s license form for import item of medical device; and (c) the above-known person forged the article’s license form for import item of medical device under the name of the Korea Food and Drug Administration by using the computer; (d) “I, as above, in accordance with the provisions of Article 6 of the Medical Devices Act and Article 5(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Medical Devices Act; and (e) “I, August 18, 200,” “I,” “I,” “I,” “I,” “I,” “I,” and “I, and the Food and Drug Administration,” affix seals affixed to the seal affixed to the official seal of the Commissioner of the Korea Food and Drug Administration, thereby forging the article’s license.

B. The above facts charged can be seen as having been specifically identified to the extent that it can distinguish the facts underlying the prosecution from other facts because both the defendant and the defendant's non-indicted wounded person's conspiracy relation and the act of the above non-indicted wounded person's execution are indicated. The above facts charged cannot be viewed differently from the fact that the personal information of the above non-indicted wounded person was not indicated. Thus, the argument in the grounds of appeal purporting that the facts charged

C. However, evidence that facts constituting a crime in criminal proceedings have been presented by a prosecutor. Even if the defendant's appeal is unreasonable and the defendant's appeal is false, it cannot be disadvantageous for that reason, and criminal facts must be proven by a judge to have a high probability beyond reasonable doubt. If there is no evidence to establish such a degree of conviction, even if there is suspicion of guilt against the defendant, the interest of the defendant should be determined (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Do3327, Mar. 23, 1993; 201Do6522, Aug. 23, 2012).

According to the records, the Defendant consistently denies the charge of forging the instant permit from the investigative agency to the court below. The fact that the Defendant obtained the instant permit, which is a forged document, from a person who was unaware of his name, and delivered it to the Nonindicted Party is not sufficient to be the ground for recognizing the crime of forging the forged official document, and there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant conspired and conspired to forge the instant permit by the act of forging the above person who was unaware of his name. However, the lower court did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the principle of free evaluation of evidence by rendering a judgment contrary to logical and empirical rules on recognizing the conspiracy of the instant permit, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The allegation in the grounds of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

2. As to the uttering of forged official document

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below and the evidence duly admitted by the court of first instance, the court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance which held that the defendant was guilty of the use of the forged official document of this case on the ground that there was a lack of awareness that the permit of this case was forged, and that the performance test of the medical device of this case was conducted on February 4, 2008, different from the fact, and that the defendant could have easily confirmed that the permit of this case was normally prepared as above because he had previously been experienced in performing import business of medical device, and that the defendant also stated that he would not use it externally since he changed the part of the date of issuance when he received the permit of this case from a person who was unaware of his name. In light of the fact that there was a lack of awareness about the forgery of the permit of this case, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the law of logic and experience and free evaluation of evidence as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below regarding the crime of forging official document should be reversed, and since the court below rendered a single sentence on the concurrent relation between the crime of uttering of forged official document and the crime of uttering of forged official document which is found guilty, the judgment of the court below is reversed in its entirety, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent

Justices Kim Yong-deok (Presiding Justice)