Whether a person who assists the head of the Dong prepares a false resident registration card, constitutes an offense of preparation of a false official document.

Although the authority to prepare a certified copy or abstract of resident registration record cards is delegated to the head of the Dong, only the head of the Dong or the head of the office is authorized to prepare it, and even if the person who assist the head of the Dong or the defendant prepares it falsely, the crime of forging a false public document does not constitute a crime of preparing false public document.

Article 227 of the Criminal Act

65Do704 decided Oct. 5, 1965 (Supreme Court Decision 3709 decided Oct. 5, 1965; Supreme Court Decision 327(7)1301 of the Criminal Act)

Defendant 1 and four others

Defendants

Seoul Criminal Court of the first instance (71 High Court Decision 1153)

Of the judgment of the court below, the part on the Defendants (excluding the part on innocence against Defendants 1 and 2) shall be reversed.

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment for three years, by imprisonment for two years and six months, by imprisonment for defendant 3, by imprisonment for one year and six months, by imprisonment for one year and six months, by imprisonment for four years, and by imprisonment for five months, respectively.

One hundred days of detention days prior to the pronouncement of the judgment below shall be included in the above-mentioned sentence against the Defendants.

3,000 won shall be additionally collected from Defendant 5.

Of the facts charged, Defendant 5 made a false copy of the abstract of the resident registration card against Nonindicted 1 in the name of the head of the Dong at the second Dong office of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on November 19, 1971, and Defendant 1, 2, and 5 conspired with Defendant 1, 2, and 5 on November 20, 1971, one of the abstract of the above false resident registration card prepared by Defendant 1, 2, and 5 presented it to Nonindicted 2 of the judicial secretary of the prosecution

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal by the Defendants is as follows: First, there is a mistake of fact that affected the judgment; second, the judgment of the court below against the Defendants is too unreasonable.

2. (A) First, as to the assertion that there exists a mistake of facts in the judgment of the court below by Defendant 3 and 4, the health care unit and the evidence duly examined by the court below are examined by comparing it with the records, and it is sufficiently sufficient to recognize the criminal facts against the same Defendants at the original time, and it cannot be found that there is any

(B) Examining the following circumstances in light of the records as to the assertion that the determination of the sentence against the same Defendants is too unreasonable, the court below's determination of the sentence against the same Defendants can be acknowledged as lacking in light of the records. Therefore, the appeal by the same Defendants is justified in this regard.

(C) The following facts are examined as to Defendant 1, 2, and 5 ex officio prior to the grounds for appeal by the said Defendants. From the judgment below, around November 19, 1971, Defendant 5 prepared two copies of the abstract of the resident registration card, which is a false official document against Nonindicted Party 1 in the name of the head of Dong, at the Dong-dong Office, Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (the first instance judgment) around November 19, 1971, and Defendant 1, 2, and 5 conspired to offer one copy of the abstract of the resident registration card, which was falsely prepared on November 20, 1971, which was presented to Nonindicted Party 2 (the second (7) and Article 5-3). Thus, the part of the judgment of the court below as to the above Defendants cannot be reversed without the need to determine on the grounds for appeal by the Defendants.

(D) More thanks to the judgment of the court below, the part concerning the defendants (excluding the part concerning the defendant 1 and 2 not guilty) among the judgment below cannot be exempted from reversal. Thus, it is reversed pursuant to Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act and it is again decided as follows.

3. (A) The criminal facts and evidence relation acknowledged as Defendant 1, 2, 3, and 4 are identical to those of the judgment below's reasoning except for the criminal facts set forth in Article 2-7 (7) at the original time of Defendant 1 and 2, and thus, they are cited as it is in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

(B) The facts constituting the crime acknowledged by a member against Defendant 5 are as follows, and the evidence relationship is identical to that of the judgment below on the ground of the reasoning of the judgment below, thereby citing it as is in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

The facts constituting a crime: Defendant 5, as a temporary clerk of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, who was in charge of the affairs concerning the entry of residents in the same Dong around November 19, 1971, was a person who was in charge of the affairs concerning the issuance of a resident registration card, an abstract of a resident registration card, and a certificate of the seal imprint issued in the same Dong, and was in charge of the reserve forces education temporarily. Since the non-indicted 1, who was in charge of the affairs concerning the issuance of a resident registration card, etc. in the same Dong, he was in charge of the above duties temporarily, he was in charge of the above duties by taking advantage of the fact that he was in charge of the above duties, he did not know the name of 135-1, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul Metropolitan City and delivered the resident registration card to the non-indicted 1, who was in charge of the affairs concerning the entry of residents in the same Dong and delivered it to the non-indicted 1, who was found guilty of the forgery of the original documents in collusion with the non-indicted 1, as the defendant 2's forged of the original documents.

(다) 법률에 비추건대, 피고인 1의 판시 제1의(1)의 사문서 위조의 점은 형법 제231조 에, 동 제1의(2)의 위조사문서 행사의 점은 동법 제234조 , 동 제231조 에, 피고인 1, 2의 판시 제2의(1) 공문서위조의 점은 동법 제225조 , 동 제30조 에, 동 제2의(2)의 위조공문서 행사의 점은 동법 제229조 , 동 제225조 에, 동 제30조 에, 동 제2의(3)의 사문서위조의 점은 동법 제231조 , 동 제30조 , 동 제2의(4)의 위조사문서 행사의 점은 동법 제234조 , 동 제231조 , 동 제30조 에, 동 제2의(5)의 공인위조의 점은 동법 제238조 1항 , 동 제30조 에 동 제2의(6)의 위조공인 행사의 점은 동법 제238조 제2항 , 제1항 , 제30조 에, 동 제2의(8)의 공정증서 원본불실기재, 동행사의 점은 각 동법 제228조 1항 , 동 제30조 에, 피고인 5의 판시 소위중 위조공문서 행사의 점은 동법 제 229조 , 동 제225조 , 동 제30조 에, 수뢰 후 부정처사의 점은 동법 제 131조 1항 , 동 제129조 1항 에, 피고인 1의 판시 제6의(1)의 뇌물공여의 점은 동법 제133조 1항 , 동 제131조 제2항 , 제1항 에, 동제6의(2)의 뇌물공여의 점은 동법 제133조 1항 , 동 제131조 1항 , 동 제129조 1항 에, 동법 제6의(3) 중 공인위조의 점은 동법 제238조 1항 에, 사인위조의 점은 동법 제239조 1항 에, 동 제6의(4)의 공문서 위조의 점은 동법 제225조 에, 동제6의(5)의 위조공문서 행사의 점은 동법 제229조 , 동 제225조 에, 피고인 1, 2, 3의 판시 제7의(1)의 사기의 점은 동법 제347조 1항 , 동 제30조 에, 동 제7의(2)의 사문서 위조의 점은 동법 제231조 , 동 제30조 에, 동 제7의(3)의 위조사문서 행사의 점은 동법 제234조 , 동 제231조 , 동 제30조 에, 피고인 1, 2, 3, 4의 판시 제8의 사기미수의 점은 동법 제352조 , 동 제347조 1항 , 동 제30조 에 각 해당하는 바, 피고인 5의 판시 위조공문서 행사의 점과 수뢰 후 부정처사의 점은 1개의 행위가 수개의 죄에 해당하는 경우이므로 동법 제40조 , 동 제50조 2항 에 의하여 중한 죄인 수뢰 후 부정처사죄에 정한 형으로 처단키로 하고, 위의 피고인들에 대한 판시 각 소위중 공정증서불실기재 동행사 뇌물공여, 사기, 사기미수의 점에 대하여는 각 소정형중 징역형을 선택하고, 피고인 1, 2, 3의 판시 각 소위는 형법 제37조 전단 의 경합범이므로, 동법 제38조 1항 2호 , 동 제50조 에 의하여 그 죄질과 범정이 가장 무거운 피고인 1에 대하여는 판시 제6의(5)의 위조공문서 행사죄에 정한 형에 피고인 2에 대하여는 판시 제2의(2)의 위조공문서 행사죄에 정한 형에, 피고인 3에 대하여는 판시 제7의(1)의 사기죄에 정한형에 각 경합 가중을 하고, 피고인 5의 이 사건 범행에는 그 정상에 참작의 여지가 있으므로 동법 제53조 , 동 제55조 1항 3호 에 의하여 작량감경을 한 후, 그 각 소정 형기범위내에서 피고인 1을 징역 30년에, 피고인 2를 징역 2년 6월에, 피고인 3을 징역 1년 6월에, 피고인 4를 징역 1년에, 피고인 5를 징역 8월에 각 처하고 동법 제57조 에 의하여 원심판결선고전 구금일수중 100일씩을 피고인들에 대한 위 본형에 각 산입하고, 피고인 5가 뇌물로 받은 금 3,000원은 같은 피고인이 이를 소비하여 몰수할 수가 없으므로 동법 제 134조 후단 에 의하여 같은 피고인으로부터 같은 가액을 추징키로 한다.

4. Of the facts charged

(A) Defendant 5 shall enter the false facts in the name column of each householder of the second head of the household of the resident registration record card, etc. on the basis of the above forged resident registration record card at the same city (A. 19, Nov. 19, 1971) Dong Office (Seoul Yeongdeungpo-gu Office) (Seoul), in the name column of the head of the household of the second household of the first place of the resident registration record card, etc., for the purpose of exercising at the same city (A. 2 Dong office of the second head of the household of the second place of the original place of the resident registration record card, etc.), Nonindicted 1 and address column in the name column of Yeongdeungpo-gu, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, 9-8, head of the household, the relationship with the head of the household, the name of the principal, and the name column of the head of the Dong, Nonindicted 1 and the name column of the head of the Dong, and make the false statement in the name of the head of the Dong 2 and the second part of the charges (A. 5) in each column).

(2) Around that time, a copy of the non-indicted 1's resident registration record card prepared falsely in the same lawsuit as described in paragraph (2) above shall be delivered to Defendant 1 and one of them shall be exercised by the Dong in the manner of exercising as described in subparagraph 2 (7) of the exhibition (the facts charged in the indictment and the facts charged in subparagraph 5 (3) of the judgment of the court below).

(B) On November 20, 1971, Defendant 1 and 2 conspired to prepare an official document in conspiracy with the defendant 1 and 2 shall be deemed to have been executed by the person authorized to prepare the official document on the basis of his authority and the contents of the document are to be falsified. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the defendant 5 shall not have authority to prepare the official document in conspiracy with the defendant 2, and the defendant 5 shall not have authority to prepare the official document in conspiracy with the defendant 2, as stated in the preceding paragraph and the abstract of the resident registration record card against the defendant 5 prepared by the prosecutor, and the defendant 5 shall not have authority to prepare the official document by presenting it to the non-indicted 2, who is a true document, with the knowledge of the fact that the copy of the resident registration record card against the non-indicted 1 prepared by the defendant 5, and the defendant 5 shall not have authority to prepare the official document in conspiracy with the head of the Dong who prepared the document by proxy and shall not have authority to do so.

5. It is so decided as per Disposition for more than one reason.

Judges Man-Operation (Presiding Judge)