Whether an indirect crime is established with regard to preparation of a false official document.

With the exception of the case of the Criminal Code Article 228, indirect crimes in preparation of false official documents by a person who is not qualified as a public official is the purpose of the Criminal Code of Korea.

Article 227 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 70Do1044 delivered on July 28, 1970 (Daad 9083 delivered on July 28, 197, Supreme Court Decision 18B65 delivered on July 18, 197, Decision Article 227(13)1302 of the Criminal Act)

Defendant 1 and one other

Prosecutor and Defendant 1

Seoul Criminal Court of the first instance (72 Gohap1010)

The part concerning Defendant 1 among the judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for ten months.

100 days out of the number of days of detention in the court below shall be included in the above punishment.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date of the final judgment.

Of the facts charged against Defendant 1, the charge against Defendant 1 is not guilty in respect of the preparation of a false official document (preliminary claim, fabrication of a public document), fabrication and uttering of a private document, the false entry of the original of a notarial deed, the exercise of the same and the exercise of a false and abstract, and the charge of

The prosecutor's appeal against the defendant 2 shall be dismissed.

The gist of the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor is that in light of the records of the case, the court below erred by misapprehending the fact that Defendant 1 made a judgment of innocence on the part above on the ground that there was no evidence, and the purport of the grounds for appeal by Defendant 1 is that the court below erred by misapprehending the fact that Defendant 1 made a judgment of innocence on the ground that there was no evidence, although it can be sufficiently recognized that Defendant 2's criminal facts can be proved, the court below erred by misapprehending the fact that Defendant 1 did not use the certified copy of the sale certificate by forging Nonindicted 3 and Nonindicted 1, and that Defendant 1 did not use it by forging a certified copy of the certified copy of the non-indicted 1. The court below erred by misapprehending the fact that Defendant 1 was guilty, despite the fact that Defendant 1 did not use it by forging the certified copy of the non-indicted 3 and the non-indicted 1.

Therefore, first of all, the prosecutor's appeal against Defendant 1 is examined.

In light of the records, Defendant 1’s registration of preservation of ownership of 884 square meters for both non-indicted 1 and the above non-indicted 2 for the establishment of a clan in the name of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul (number omitted) and then forged a letter of delegation from the above person to transfer ownership to the original family register, which is a notarial deed, and exercise the right to file a prosecution. The entries in the protocol of examination of witness and the statement of witness for the non-indicted 2, who are consistent with the fact that the above grave was sold to non-indicted 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, are likely to believe that the entries in the protocol of examination of witness on the non-indicted 4, 5, 6, 8, and 9 were recorded in the name of the non-indicted 1 and that the non-indicted 1’s name was sold to the non-indicted 2 and that the non-indicted 1’s name was recorded in the name of the court below and the court below and the non-indicted 1’s name was found to be non-indicted 284.

Thus, even if the above grave land is owned by Defendant 1, Nonindicted 2, or a clan to which he belongs, the act of preparing a letter of delegation of sale in the name of Nonindicted 2, or the act of preserving ownership or transferring the ownership or selling the ownership in the name of Nonindicted 2 or the name of the Defendant, and the act of selling it shall be deemed to be an act performed within the scope of business administration with the delegation of the people from the door, regardless of whether it is above or under the premise that the land is owned by the above clan (the prosecutor is not only prosecuted under the premise that the land is owned by a person other than Nonindicted 2, but also does not have any evidence that it is owned by

The following grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the records, on July 25, 1968, the court below prepared two copies of the non-indicted 10 (OO) and the non-indicted 3 (OOO) in the column for the removal of the original documents at the new office of Yeongdeungpo-gu (OO) on the non-indicted 1 and the non-indicted 3 (OOO) at the non-indicted 1's request of the defendant 1 and the non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 3's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 10 and the non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 3's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 3's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 3's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 3's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 3's the defendant 1's non-indicted

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that recognized Defendant 3, who conspired with Defendant 1, stolen the relevant person's letter and forged a copy of a certified copy of a certified copy under the name of the head of Yeongdeungpo-gu and Nonindicted 1, which is an official document under the name of the head of Yeongdeungpo-gu. Thus, the judgment of the court below is an unlawful judgment that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts, and thus, the defendant 1's appeal is justifiable.

Therefore, pursuant to Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the part of the judgment of the court below regarding Defendant 1 is reversed, and it is again decided as follows. Defendant 1 thought that both sides of the grave (number omitted) in Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul and that it is owned by Nonindicted 3 (○○○○). However, it is discovered that the land cadastre kept in the Yeongdeungpo-gu Office is unregistered land and that it is Non-Indicted 2’s net records of Non-Indicted 10 (○○○○○○) residing in the same Dong (hereinafter omitted) was known that it was Non-Indicted 10 (O○○○○) without the owner’s address, and the above land cadastre was obtained from Non-Indicted 2 and registered again in the name of the defendant, and then, it was decided to transfer the above land to the name of the non-Indicted 3 (O○○○) and then request the relevant non-indicted 3 to prepare a new copy and an abstract of the land cadastre in the name of the non-indicted 1 on July 25, 1968.

2. On the 31st day of the same month, a copy of a certified copy of Nonindicted Party 10 (Seoul) forged at the Yeongdeungpopool registry office is a true document, along with an application document for registration of preservation of ownership of the said grave in the name of Nonindicted Party 2, and submitted it to the relevant registry office staff.

The facts of the judgment above are examined as evidence.

1. The statement made by Defendant 1 to the lower court and the trial court, consistent with the facts stated in the judgment

1. The testimony that conforms to the facts set forth in the judgment of the court below as to the witness at the trial court of the court below and the statement to the effect that it conforms to the facts set forth in the judgment of the court below among the defendant examination protocol against

1. Each statement in the fifth trial record of the Seoul Criminal Court (Seoul Criminal Court) consistent with the facts set forth in the judgment of Non-Indicted 16, 17, 18, and 19;

1. Each statement made by the prosecutor with respect to Nonindicted 16, 17, and 19, which conforms to the facts indicated in the judgment;

1. Statement of the appraisal results consistent with the facts stated in the judgment among the appraisal reports prepared by Nonindicted 15

1. In full view of the existence of Nonindicted 10 (No. 9) as a certified abstract of the seized Nonindicted 10 (Seoul), all of the facts in the judgment are sufficient evidence.

The so-called "non-competence" and "defendant 1" in the law fall under Articles 229 and 227 of the Criminal Act. Since the above two crimes are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the same Act, they are concurrent crimes under Article 37 of the same Act, they shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than 10 months within the scope of the term of punishment severe competition with the punishment prescribed for the crime under Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act. According to Article 57 of the same Act, 100 days out of the number of days of confinement in the court below shall be included in the above punishment, and the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for 2 years from the date when the judgment of this case becomes final by taking into account the circumstances such as the first offense.

The summary of the facts charged against Defendant 1, except for the non-indicted 10 (hereinafter referred to as the "non-indicted 10") as indicated in the judgment of the court below, shall be the person engaged in agriculture. While the area of the grave (number omitted) located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul, Non-indicted 2, 5, 6, 11, and 12, and the land cadastre kept in Yeongdeungpo-gu, the owner of the grave was identified as non-indicted 3 (round February 1968, the non-indicted 5, 6, 11, and 12 were assigned to the non-indicted 2, the non-indicted 1, the non-indicted 2, the non-indicted 2, the non-indicted 2, the non-indicted 1, the non-indicted 2, the non-indicted 3, the non-indicted 2, the non-indicted 1, the non-indicted 2, the non-indicted 2, the non-indicted 3, the non-indicted 1, the non-indicted 2, and the non-indicted 3, the non-indicted 2, the defendant's.

1. On July of the same year, after preparing, at the office office of the defendant 3 at the court below on the same day, the sales certificate of the number of the non-indicted 2's goods sold by the defendant 2 to the defendant and the letter of delegation for registration in the name of the defendant 2, each of which was obtained from the non-indicted 2 as necessary for the defendant to become the name of a clan from the non-indicted 2 in advance under the name of the Dong of each of the documents, and forging each of the documents;

2. From July 30 of the same year, around July 30 of the same year, 21, the Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 21, issued to Nonindicted 21 the above sale certificate delegation letter, the copy of land cadastre, the copy of the non-indicted 1, and the copy of the non-indicted 2's family register, and the copy of the non-indicted 2's family register in the office of the non-indicted 21 judicial affairs, and issued a copy of the non-indicted 2's family register, and registered for preservation in the name of the defendant in the name of the non-indicted 2, and requested the person to file an application for registration of transfer in the name of the defendant, and submitted the documents to the Yeongdeungpo-gu registry around July 31 of the same year and submitted it to the Young-gu registry office as if the documents were established, and had the public official in the government branch transfer the land to the name

3. On August 11 of the same year, in Yang-dong, Yeongdeungpo-gu sold this tomb site to Nonindicted 4 in gold 2,475,200 won, thereby acquiring the property benefits of the same amount, and thereby causing property damage equivalent to the same amount to Nonindicted 2, 5, and 6 in wartime;

4. On July 25, 1968, at the office of administrative secretary of the defendant 3 at the court below as of July 25, 1968, only written as the non-indicted 10 (round 10) on the land cadastre and the address of the above grave was omitted, and the name of the non-indicted 2, the co-indicted 2, who used the land in order to register the preservation of the above grave in the name of non-indicted 2, in the name of the non-indicted 3 (○○○), even though the name of the non-indicted 3 (○○○), was changed to the non-indicted 10 (round 10), and the children of the non-indicted 1, who were the owners of the land cadastre, requested the defendant 3 of the court below to receive two copies of each of

(main claim)

Defendant 3 at the new branch office of Yeongdeungpo-gu Office of the court below, the defendant 2 requested the defendant 2, who is the head of the family register of the court below, to draw up and issue the abstract of the family register of the defendant 1 and 3 (as to draw up the abstract of the family register of the defendant 2, the defendant 2 shall accept the abstract of the register of the non-indicted 1 and 3 (B) and, for the same purpose, the defendant 2 shall make the register of the non-indicted 3 (B) at the above office of the court below with the non-indicted 10 (B), and the non-indicted 1 and 10 (B) written two copies of the abstract of the register of the non-indicted 2, who affixed it to the defendant 2, affixed a joint seal to the co-indicted 10 (B) and write up the abstract of the register of the non-indicted 3 (B) and the abstract of the register of the non-indicted 1 and the abstract of the non-indicted 4 (B) as the head of the Gu).

(Preliminary Claim)

On July 25, 1969, the defendant 3, who conspired with the defendant 1 as shown in the court below, moved to the new branch office of Yeongdeungpo-gu Office, Yeongdeungpo-gu and borrowed the register of removal from the defendant 2, and the register of removal from the non-indicted 1 and 3 in each corresponding column of the register of removal from the register of removal from the register of removal from the register of the non-indicted 3 (Seoul) shall prepare two copies of the register of removal from the non-indicted 1 and 3 in each corresponding column of the register of removal from the register of removal from the register of the non-indicted 10 (Benk) with the non-indicted 10 (Benk) and then signed two copies of the certified person, the date, the name of the head of the Gu, the name of the head of the Gu, the head of the Gu, and the non-indicted 2, etc.

5. As if the original copy and abstract of Nonindicted Party 1, forged as indicated in the war, is a document with genuine content

(A)as indicated on July 29, 1968, by submitting to the official of the Yeongdeungpo-gu Intellectual Property Office in the government land along with an application for the land owner’s address, etc.;

(B) Around July 31 of the same year, Nonindicted 2 submitted to the Yeongdeungpo-gu Port Office, along with the documents attached to the application for registration for the preservation of the grave site for exhibition in the name of Nonindicted 2.

In light of the above facts, the facts of the indictment No. 1, the non-indicted 2's non-indicted 3's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 3's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 3's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 3's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 3's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 3's non-indicted 3's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 3's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 3's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 3's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 3's non-indicted-indicted public document's non-indicted's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 3's non-indicted's non-indicted 2's non-indicted.

Therefore, the prosecutor's prosecution on the above part is not all a crime or it is found that there is no proof, and thus the prosecutor is not guilty under Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

The following grounds of appeal are examined against the prosecutor's defendant 2.

The first instance court's decision to the effect that, upon receiving the request of the defendant 3 at the court below at the court below's upper trial, the first instance court's decision to the effect that it is reasonable and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise in light of the entries of the witness examination protocol against the non-indicted 22 and the contents of the expert testimony prepared by the non-indicted 15 on the ground that the non-indicted 22 prepared a false official document by changing the second half of the second half of the first half of the second half of the second half of the second half of the first half of the second half of the second half of the second half of the second half of the second half of the second half of the second half of the second half of the second half and the second half of the second half of the second half of the second half of the second half of the second half of the second half of the documents to light the light with the light with the light with which the non-indicted 3 (

Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal against Defendant 2 is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Hong Man Pung (Presiding Judge)