Whether the advertising guide published in the name of the Mayor of Seoul Metropolitan Government becomes the object of the crime of forging an official document.

If a 30-year cooperative participates in the Dongdaemun-gu Comprehensive Market and a 30-year comprehensive direct store for products of small and medium enterprises is established, and the advertisement guide for a direct store issued in the name of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor at the time of the establishment of the "comprehensive store for products of small and medium enterprises" has the form and appearance to the extent that it is believed that the advertisement guide for a direct store was made within the authority of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor who is a public official, it shall meet the requirements for public document

Article 225 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 64Do308 delivered on August 31, 1964 (Kakadd. 4149; Supreme Court Decision 12 ② 12Nu1299 delivered on April 4, 1967 (Supreme Court Decision 3601; Decision 225Do129 delivered on January 21, 1969) (Supreme Court Decision 68Do1570 delivered on January 21, 1969, Decision 68Do1570 delivered on January 21, 1969 (Supreme Court Decision 76; Decision 17Do19 delivered on July 19, 199; Decision 225(17)1299 of the Criminal Act)

Defendant

Prosecutor and Defendant

Seoul Criminal Court of the first instance (73 Gohap915)

The appeal by the prosecutor and the defendant shall be dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal by the defendant is as follows: first, as to each of the facts charged in this case, there was little room for the defendant in the process of promoting the organization of the Saemaul Consumer Cooperative Federation, but there was no doubt about the intention of acquiring money from the victims, and also there was no doubt about the violation of the Illegal Check Control Act. The court below found the defendant guilty of all of the facts charged in violation of the Illegal Check Control Act and the fraud. The court below erred in the misunderstanding of facts that affected the judgment, and second, as for the crime of forging public documents, there was an error of law in the misapprehension of facts that affected the judgment, and second, as for the crime of forging public documents, the public document which the defendant forged is merely an advertisement, and it was not equipped with an external form of public document, and the court below found the defendant guilty of forging public document and its exercise. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles of public document, which affected the judgment, and the judgment of the court below is too unfair, and the decision of the court below is too unfair.

First, in light of the records, the first point of appeal of the defendant is health. Considering the evidence duly adopted by the court below after examining the evidence of the defendant in light of the records, each crime of fraud and violation of the Illegal Check Control Act can be sufficiently recognized, and there is no error of law as pointed out in the argument in the process of fact-finding of the court below, and the second point of the above appeal is examined in light of the records, the evidence adopted by the court below through legitimate evidence investigation, which is the second point of the above appeal, 30th of the Dongdaemun-gu General Market Co., Ltd., on December 20, 1971, 30 cooperatives participated in the crime and "comprehensive store for small and medium enterprise products" in the name of the non-indicted in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, which is beneficial to the consumer who was issued under the name of the non-indicted in Seoul Special Metropolitan City at the time of the establishment of a "comprehensive store for small and medium enterprise products", the defendant's motive and circumstance that the court below's defendant's use of the above information can be considered as the defendant's motive and reason for its use.

Therefore, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Lee Ho-ho (Presiding Judge)