Whether it constitutes the so-called crime of forging Private Document, stating an application for a loan prepared by the holder of a title deed upon delegation of a certain amount of borrowing authority and an amount equivalent to the amount delegated in the blank of the receipt (affirmative)

Even if the document in the name of the truster was prepared by the beginning of the entrusted authority, or the signature and seal of the truster was duly formed, if the document is prepared contrary to the intention of the signature and seal holder, the crime of forging a private document is established. Therefore, if the defendant was entrusted with the loan of KRW 75,00,000 from the non-indicted (A) and entered the borrowed amount in KRW 150,000,000 after the receipt of the loan application and the receipt with the seal affixed thereon, and prepared the loan application and receipt in the name of the non-indicted (A), the crime of forging a document is established.

Article 231 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 74Do2035 Delivered on July 13, 1976

Defendant

Defendant

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 82No1745 delivered on July 16, 1982

The appeal is dismissed.

The number of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the calculation of the original sentence.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The crime of forging private documents is established when the document under the name of the truster is prepared or signed and sealed by the other person for the first time with the authority entrusted by the other person or when the signature and seal of the other person is duly formed (see Supreme Court Decision 74Do2035, Jul. 13, 1976). According to the records, the defendant's receipt of a loan proposal from 75,000,000 won and 75,000 won and 75,000 won and 75,000 won and 75,000 won and 00 won and 00 won and 00 won and 00 won and 00 won and 00 won and 00 won and 00 won and 00 won and 00 won and 00 won and 70% of the above loan application form and 70% of the above documents and 00 won of the above receipts and s/he can not be seen as legitimate.

2. Reviewing the record, the defendant's keeping of the insurance policy of long-term living design of the non-indicted 4 and 5 was entrusted to the defendant with the payment of money from the insurance company, which is the defendant's workplace, as security, in violation of the purpose of entrustment, to change this insurance policy to the name of the non-indicted diversary and Do insurance contract in the name of the non-indicted divesary and divesarys, and submitted it to the company to the same company for the change of the name of the insurance contract in the name of the above insurance policy, and delivered it to the right holder of the above insurance policy in accordance with the contents of the application, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence.

Therefore, without merit, the appeal is dismissed, and one copy of the number of days of detention pending trial shall be added to the same. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Jeon Soo-hee (Presiding Justice)