[1] Whether the title holder is included in the other party to the crime of uttering of the above investigation document (affirmative)

[2] The time when the crime of uttering of a falsified investigation document was committed in case of mailing a forged document

[1] An event in the crime of uttering of forged documents refers to an act that is likely to impair the public credibility of documents by using forged documents as authentic. As such, the other party to the event does not constitute a counter-party to the event on the ground that there is no restriction as to the other party to the event, and that it is the name of the

[2] The exercise of the above investigation document does not require the other party to recognize a forged document so that it can be copied and the other party does not have to recognize its content. Thus, in case where a forged document was sent to the other party, the document is delivered when it reaches the other party, and the other party does not have to regard the document actually.

[1] Article 234 of the Criminal Code / [2] Article 234 of the Criminal Code

[1] Supreme Court Decision 85Do2798 decided Feb. 25, 1986 (Gong1986, 582)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Daegu District Court Decision 2004No398 delivered on July 6, 2004

The non-guilty part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division. The judgment of the court below shall be corrected on April 27, 2004 to " July 6, 2004."

1. The judgment of the court below

Of the facts charged in this case against the defendant, the court below found the defendant guilty on August 17, 200 of the facts charged as follows: "In the event that the defendant did not pay rent, management expenses, publicity expenses, etc. to the victim's stores within gallon in the old-si, Nowon-dong, 123-7 on August 17, 2002, for not less than 2 months, the defendant sent it to the victim's counter-san who is unaware of the circumstances under the above Article by sending it to the victim's counter-san, with a copy of the pre-fluence letter as if it was duly formed, and the defendant's new gallonization within the above gallon and the gallon shop in the same manner as above, and exercised it to the victim's new gallonization and the gal file in the name of the gallon." In relation to the exercise of each of the above investigation documents, the court below found the defendant not guilty of the forgery of each falsified document, which constitutes a forged document.

2. Judgment of the Supreme Court

However, it is difficult to accept the fact-finding and judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

An event in the crime of uttering of a forged document refers to an act that is likely to impair the public credit of the document by using the forged document as authentic. As such, the other party to the event is not a party to the event because there is no restriction on the use of the forged document and it is the name of the forged document, and it is not the other party to the event. However, if an event is held to an accomplice, etc. who has already known that the document was forged, the crime of uttering of the forged document may not be established (see Supreme Court Decision 85Do2798, Feb. 25, 1986). In addition, the event may be effected by leaving the other party aware of the forged document in a situation where the other party can recognize it, and the other party does not have actual knowledge thereof. Thus, in case of mailing a forged document, it may be effected when the document arrives at the other party,

According to the records, in the police and the court of first instance, the victim's external purification statement was made to the effect that it was known that it was a copy attached to the reputation letter that it was forged from the defendant (2002-type No. 17017 and No. 95-type No. 17017 and No. 73-type No. 17017), and the victim's reliance statement was also made to the same effect (the investigation records No. 99 and No. 76-type No. 176 of the trial records), and the victim's Park Dong-dong made a statement to the effect that it was not signed and sealed by the tenant's own identification book, and that it was known that the above victims had already been forged before viewing the copy of the reputation letter attached to the reputation letter (the investigation records No. 103 and the trial records No. 82-83 of the trial records). On the other hand, there is no evidence to deem that each of the above victims had been forged.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the victims, who are the title holders of each forged contract, of the fact that they had been aware of the forgery of each falsified contract book, is erroneous in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence or in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the display of the falsified contract document, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

The appeal by the prosecutor is justified.

3. Scope of reversal

In the case of this case where only the prosecutor appealed on the part of not guilty, the part of conviction which was not appealed by both parties is separated and confirmed after the period of appeal expires and the case pending in the final appeal is prosecuted as to the part of not guilty in the final appeal. Thus, the part of not guilty should be reversed when it is reversed in the final appeal (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 91Do1402 delivered on January 21, 1992).

4. Therefore, the non-guilty part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination, and since it is obvious that the date of the judgment of the court below's sentencing is a clerical error of " July 6, 2004", it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Shin-chul (Presiding Justice)