Preparation of documents against the will of the person whose seal is affixed in blank and the fabrication of private documents;

Even if the victim, who owns a grave in another location, is required to collect earth and rocks away from the aggregate collection place applied by the defendant, there is no damage, so that there is a request for consent, and the seal imprint is affixed to the blank consent form. If the location of the grave was stated in the consent form in the land around the aggregate collection place against the victim's will for the purpose of exercising the right, the consent form of the victim's name prepared by the defendant is different from the consent form with the seal imprint affixed to the consent form, and it is contrary to the purport of the consent to write and complete the above consent form. Thus, the defendant prepared a document that is not the consent form of the victim, and the consent form of the consent form against the victim's will is prepared, and it constitutes a case where the document is forged. The victim's prior seal imprint affixed to the consent form is true, and it cannot be said that it is not a forgery of the private document with the consent form.

Article 231 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 74Do2035 Decided July 13, 1976 (Gong1974, 9303) 82Do2023 Decided October 12, 1982 (Gong1982, 1125) 83Do2408 Decided June 12, 1984 (Gong1984, 1237)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Kim Jong-chul

Cheongju District Court Decision 91No6 delivered on October 2, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 are also examined.

Upon examining the records, the fact-finding of the court below is acceptable, and there is no error in the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, and it cannot be deemed that the defendant or the first instance court made a confession in the first instance court, and that it was false to make a confession in the first instance court.

According to the facts affirmed by the court of first instance, the defendant and the co-defendant of the court below did not know the owners of seven graves in the vicinity of the aggregate extraction site applied in the name of the defendant, and it is difficult to obtain written consent from the victims of other graves not related to this grave, and the defendant and the co-defendant of the court below conspired to prepare and submit written consent in a manner of stating the location of the seven graves in the public space after being sealed on the paper of the public space. The victims of this case who own the grave in other location should be allowed to collect earth and rocks in a distance from the aggregate extraction site applied by the defendant, so there is no damage. Thus, the consent form is different from the written consent form of the victims, and the consent form was written for the purpose of exercising the seal impression. Accordingly, each consent form in the name of the victims prepared by the defendant and the co-defendant of the court of first instance and the court below in collusion with the victim's consent form, and it is not contrary to the purport of the written consent form, and it is not contrary to the purport of the written consent form.

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

Justices Lee Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)