logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2007. 2. 23. 선고 2005도7430 판결
[공문서위조·위조공문서행사(예비적죄명:공인위조·위조공인행사)][미간행]
Main Issues

The case affirming the judgment of the court below which acquitted a person on the ground that where the door of the market name to be printed on the standard plastic garbage bags is the act of manufacturing the new film, it does not reach the commencement of the crime of forging the standard plastic garbage bags under the above market name, and it is merely the preparation stage.

[Reference Provisions]

Articles 225 and 229 of the Criminal Act

Escopics

Defendant

upper and high-ranking persons

Prosecutor

Judgment of the lower court

Incheon District Court Decision 2005No1359 Decided September 12, 2005

Text

The appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the manufacturing process of the “standard plastic garbage bags” under the name of the annexed market in this case (hereinafter “waste bags”) and the Defendant’s intent, etc., the lower court determined that the Defendant attempted to sell the forged and genuine waste bags for the purpose of use is necessary in the process of forging the waste bags under the name of the annexed market, and that the door in the name of the annexed market for printing the waste bags cannot be deemed to be new films, and that it is impossible to print the door in the name of the annexed market in the waste bags only with the above film to print the door in the name of the annexed market, and it is possible to produce a copper based on the above film only before the manufacturing process of the above waste bags, and it is merely the commencement of the crime of forging the waste bags, which is the official document in the name of the annexed market, and that there is no other evidence to acknowledge that there was no other evidence to prove that there was only the aforementioned paper plastic bag manufacturing process in the name of the annexed market.

Upon examining the records in light of the relevant legal principles, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no violation of law by misunderstanding legal principles as argued in the Grounds for Appeal.

The Prosecutor’s petition of appeal or appellate brief on the ancillary facts of the instant case does not contain any grounds of appeal.

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

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)

arrow
심급 사건
- 인천지방법원 2005.9.12.선고 2005노1359

참조조문

- 형법 제225조 (위헌조문)

- 형법 제229조 (위헌조문)

원심판결

- 인천지법 2005. 9. 12. 선고 2005노1359 판결