[1] Whether a copy of a document reproduced by using a reproduction machine, etc. constitutes a document that is the object of the crime of forging documents and the crime of uttering (affirmative), and whether a copy of a true document constitutes an act of forging documents by making it entirely different from the content of the copy by using an electronic reproduction machine (affirmative)

[2] The case holding that the act of using a copy of another person's resident registration certificate with his/her photograph affixed to his/her photograph constitutes the crime of forging an official document and the crime of uttering

[1] According to Article 237-2 of the Criminal Code, a copy of a document reproduced using an electronic reproduction apparatus, facsimile or other similar apparatus is also the document having the same meaning as the original document, which is also the object of the crime of forging a document and creating a copy entirely different from the content of the copy by using an electronic reproduction apparatus. It constitutes an act of forging a document, which creates a separate document copy that may impair public credibility.

[2] The case holding that the act of using a copy of another person's resident registration certificate with a photograph affixed by the defendant constitutes the crime of forging an official document and the crime of uttering

[1] Articles 225 and 237-2 of the Criminal Act / [2] Articles 225, 229, and 237-2 of the Criminal Act

[1] Supreme Court en banc Decision 87Do506 delivered on September 12, 1989 (Gong1989, 1418), Supreme Court Decision 92Do226 delivered on November 27, 1992 (Gong1993Sang, 316), Supreme Court Decision 94Do4 delivered on March 22, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 1376), Supreme Court Decision 95Do2389 delivered on December 26, 1995 (Gong196Sang, 651), Supreme Court Decision 96Do785 delivered on May 14, 196 (Gong196Ha, 1969) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 90Do1615 delivered on September 10, 1991 (Gong196Ha, 1969)

Defendant

Defendant

Seoul District Court Decision 2000No3857 delivered on June 14, 2000

The appeal is dismissed. 70 days out of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to Article 237-2 of the Criminal Act, a copy of a document reproduced by using an electronic reproduction apparatus, facsimile or other similar apparatus is also the document having the same meaning as the original document, which is also the object of the crime of forging documents and the crime of uttering. The act of making a copy of the authentic document entirely different from the content of the copy by partially manipulating it by using an electronic reproduction apparatus constitutes an act of creating a separate document copy which might impair public credibility (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 87Do506, Sept. 12, 1989; 96Do785, May 14, 1996).

According to the evidence adopted by the court of first instance maintained by the court below, since the defendant can be recognized that he copied the copy of his resident registration certificate by attaching his photograph to the photo page of the non-indicted and created a completely separate copy of his resident registration certificate, the court below is justified in finding the defendant guilty in accordance with the above legal principles, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the misconception of facts against the rules of evidence or the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the crime of forging official document and the crime of forging official document, as alleged in the grounds for appeal, and the precedents cited in the grounds for

2. According to the evidence of the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below, the defendant abused that the non-indicted corporation, the victim of the crime, by deceiving the non-indicted corporation by forging another person's application form for subscription and illegally issuing a mobile phone and did not pay the mobile phone user fee, the defendant can use the mobile phone for at least two months even if he did not pay the mobile phone user fee, and it can be sufficiently recognized that the co-defendants of the court of first instance and the non-indicteds of the above mobile phone will use the same mobile phone with the victim and will not pay the monetary fee in sequence, and the defendant acquired profits equivalent to the monetary fee by receiving the monetary service from the victim as

3. In this case where the defendant was sentenced to a minor punishment more than 10 years of imprisonment, the reason that the amount of punishment is unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and part of the number of days pending trial after the appeal is included in the principal sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)