Where a document is forged and kept in a related document file, a copy of the crime of uttering of a forged document;

An event in the crime of uttering of forged documents, etc. refers to the use of forged documents, etc. in accordance with the method of using such documents, such as a true document, and if a criminal person presents, delivers, or records them on his/her own, it shall not be deemed that the crime of uttering of forged documents, etc. is established unless the criminal person presents, delivers, or records them in accordance with the effective method. Thus, if the act of lending is used for the purpose of lawfully lending them, it shall be deemed that the act of uttering of forged documents, etc. is used in accordance with the method of using the document, and it shall be deemed that the act of uttering of falsified documents, etc. is established if it is not different from the act of presenting, delivering, or using them in accordance with the effective method.

Article 234 of the Criminal Act

Seoul High Court Decision 70Do1122 delivered on June 30, 1970 (No. 18B type 39Ka909 delivered on March 25, 1975)

Defendant

Defendant

Government Branch of the Seoul District Court (83 High Gohap275)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

The fifteen days out of the detention days prior to the pronouncement of the judgment below shall be included in the above sentence.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The gist of the defendant's appeal No. 1 is that the defendant did not participate in the illegal loan of this case by the representative director of non-indicted 1, representative director of non-indicted 2 on March 7, 1983 with regard to the violation of the Mutual Saving and Finance Company Act in the original judgment. In particular, although the defendant was admitted to the above credit safe on March 7, 1983, the court below found the defendant's participation in the illegal loan of this case before entering the above credit safe without evidence. The court below erred in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence or the misunderstanding of facts which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and the second part of the judgment of the court below was that the defendant was prepared with related documents such as a written application for the installment loan of this case and kept them in custody together with other evidentiary documents, and the court below rejected the defendant's decision because it did not affect the conclusion of the judgment, and it did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the mistake of facts or the exercise of document, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, I first examine the second ground for appeal.

In the crime of uttering of forged documents, etc., an event refers to using forged documents, etc. in accordance with the method of using such documents as if they were true documents or contents thereof. It means not only presenting, delivering or delivering them by the offender himself, but also using them in accordance with the method of using them, the crime of uttering of falsified documents, etc. is established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 75Do422, Mar. 25, 1975; 70Do1122, Jun. 30, 1970). In full view of the various evidence duly admitted by the court below and testimony at the court of the trial of the party concerned by Nonindicted 2, as at the time of original trial, the above credit safe representative director, etc., were to loan funds of the above credit cooperative to the Nonindicted 3 who is an excessive investor of the above credit cooperative, and if they were not different from the presentation or delivery by the offender, it constitutes a crime of uttering of falsified documents, etc., and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as evidence and the name and address of the above defendant's.

Next, according to the reasoning of appeal No. 3, the defendant is a new employee who was employed by the above credit cooperative, and the circumstances leading to the defendant's participation in the crime such as the illegal loan act of this case and the forgery or uttering of related documents are in accordance with the direction of the above representative director, who is a superior. However, it is clear that the contents of the order violate the law, such as "the name and address of the debtor and the guarantor are extracted from the telephone book and the seal of the above person is forged and forged, and it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant was aware of the fact that the defendant was involved, it cannot be deemed that the defendant was an inevitable act that has no possibility of expectation. Therefore, there is no ground for appeal.

Before determining the remaining grounds for appeal, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained without making a decision on the remaining grounds for appeal, since the public prosecutor ex officio examined the grounds for appeal, and the public prosecutor changed the contents of the facts charged and permitted the members to do so.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the appeal by the defendant is therefore justified, and the judgment is again ruled as follows.

In collusion with Nonindicted 4’s auditor, Nonindicted 5’s agent in charge of business, Nonindicted 2’s representative director, and Nonindicted 3, who are investors, the Defendant is an employee in charge of lending Nonindicted 1 credit safe located in the Namyang-gu, Namyang-gu, Seoul.

1. At around 11:00 on March 7, 1983, the above safe office prepared each item of information necessary for the installment loan using a gate, which was approved by Nonindicted Party 2 from Nonindicted Party 6 and nine other persons, for the purpose of uttering in violation of its duties with knowledge of the fact, each installment loan application for 20,000,000 won from Nonindicted Party 6 and nine other persons listed in the separate sheet delivered by Nonindicted Party 2 from the above office at the city, and 20,000,000 won, 30,000 won, 5,000 won, 6), 30,000,000 won, and 40,000 won, from 6,000,000 won, to 00,000 won, and 00,000 won, 00,000 won, 60,000,000 won, 70,000 won, 60,000.

2. At that time, Nonindicted 4, 5, and Nonindicted 2 were aware of the fact that the documents, such as the written application for installment loan forged as above, were forged, with the approval of Nonindicted 4, 5, and Nonindicted 2 successively obtained, and subsequently, keep the said documents in the office of the above credit office, which is the document duly formed, and exercises the right to keep them in

3. From April 11, 1983 to May 27, 1983 of the same year, the office of the above credit safe violates its duties, and among the annexed list of crimes, the sum total of KRW 280,000,000 as the face value stated in the application for installment loan to non-indicted 7 and 20, a considerable amount of the above period among the annexed list of crimes, shall be delivered to non-indicted 3 by withdrawing it as sales name, thereby allowing non-indicted 3 to gain profits equivalent to the same amount and causing damage to the above safe.

The evidence relationship with the above facts is the time of original adjudication except for addition of each statement consistent with the facts in the trial court of the defendant and non-indicted 2 of the witness at the trial court of the court. Thus, it shall be quoted by Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

The so-called 1 of the judgment of the defendant is one of the so-called 231 of the Criminal Act; the so-called 2 of the judgment is Articles 234 and 231 of the Criminal Act; the so-called 3 of the judgment is one of the three of the so-called crimes as provided in Article 39 (1) 2 of the Mutual Saving and Finance Company Act; each of the crimes as provided in the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act is concurrent crimes under Article 38 (1) 2 and Article 50 of the Criminal Act; since each of the crimes as provided in the judgment of the court below is one of the concurrent crimes under Article 38 (1) 2 and Article 50 of the same Act; the defendant takes part in the crime in the crime of this case under the direction of the superior representative director; and since there is a reason to take into account the circumstances such as the fact that the defendant takes part in the crime of this case under Article 231 of the Criminal Act and Article 55 (1) 3 of the same Act, the above punishment shall be suspended within the period of imprisonment within six months prior to the above Act.

According to the indictment of this case, it is evident that the prosecutor prosecuted the so-called "the defendant's decision 3 crimes of occupational breach of trust" and the two crimes of violation of the Mutual Savings and Finance Company Act are established. Since the elements of the crime of violation of Article 39 (1) 2 of the Mutual Savings and Finance Company Act include the act of occupational breach of trust under Article 356 of the Criminal Act of a certain person engaged in the business of the Mutual Savings and Finance Company, the above two crimes are related to mutual mutual aid agreement, and if the crime of occupational breach of trust under Article 356 of the Criminal Act is committed as a violation of the Mutual Savings and Finance Company Act, which is a special law, the special law does not lead to a separate crime of occupational breach of trust under Article 356 of the Criminal Act, so the latter person shall be acquitted, but since this is included in the Mutual Savings and Finance Company Act and therefore

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Nohn-Du (Presiding Judge)