The case reversing the judgment of the court below which found guilty of the facts charged in the preparation and uttering of false official documents on the grounds of violating the rules of evidence.

The case reversing the judgment of the court below which found guilty of the facts charged in the preparation of false official documents and the crime of uttering on the ground that no evidence was found to prove that the defendant prepared the document with knowledge of the fact that the contents of the document

Articles 227 and 229 of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 5057 of Dec. 29, 1995)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Lee Young-hoon

Seoul Criminal District Court Decision 94No5301 delivered on February 21, 1995

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul District Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On September 26, 1992, the court below found the defendant guilty of having prepared a false public document regarding his duties by making a false statement on the location map of the afforestation business card located in the above Gu office with the content that the real estate to which the inquiry of fact was requested on the afforestation business card was not designated as an afforestation area, because the location map of the afforestation business card was marked as an afforestation area in the afforestation area, and upon making a false statement on the location map of the afforestation business card, the defendant prepared a false public document with regard to his duties and exercised it by keeping it in the city office of Gangnam-gu, and on the 28th of the same month. In preparing a response letter on the above fact inquiry request, the above lot number was not afforested in the Si office of Gangnam-gu, Seoul, and in particular, the non-party 118-15 and the non-party 2 lots of land in the Dong-dong 118-15 and the defendant prepared a false statement on the contents of the afforestation card within 246-360 et al., al., 199.

2. However, the Defendant denied the criminal intent by knowing that the real estate in the parcel which was consistently inquired from the investigative agency to the original trial was included in the afforestation area of the afforestation business, with the knowledge of the fact that it was included in the afforestation area of the afforestation business in the Defendant’s business lodging, and that it was not possible to prepare and use a false name statement and response statement contrary to the objective facts as above.

Therefore, according to the records, when the defendant prepares the above 4 name tag and the above 5 name tag, it is merely indicated on August 20, 197 that the above 4 name tag and the above 5 name tag and the 4-dong name tag were recorded on the above 4-dong name tag and the above 4-dong name tag were recorded on the 5-dong name tag and the above 4-dong name tag were recorded on the 5-dong name tag and the above 5-dong name tag and the 5-dong name tag were recorded on the 4-dong name tag and the above 4-dong name tag were recorded on the 5-dong name tag and the 5-dong name tag were recorded on the 5-dong name tag and the 5-dong name tag were recorded on the 6-dong name tag and the 4-dong name tag were recorded on the 14-dong name tag and the above 1-dong name tag were recorded on the 6-dong name tag.

Therefore, it cannot be readily concluded that the content of the above document prepared by the defendant is different from the objective fact, and the content of the document is false. In addition, there is no evidence suggesting that the defendant prepared the document with the knowledge of the fact that the content of the document was false even after examining the record.

Ultimately, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty as to the facts charged in the preparation of the false official document of this case and the crime of uttering thereof shall not be erroneous in the misconception of facts against the rules of evidence, and there is a reason to argue that the appeal is erroneous.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed and remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)