Whether it constitutes an unlawful uttering of official documents where a driver's license under another person's name is presented to a police officer for identification (negative)

According to the provisions of Articles 68 and 77 of the Road Traffic Act, the driver's license is a certificate of passing the driver's license test and it is specified to carry it when the driver's license is driven, and when the police officer is requested to present it, so if the defendant acquires and holds a driver's license under another person's name and presents it for identification upon the police officer's request to present it, such act of presenting the driver's license does not constitute an unlawful uttering of official documents as provided by Article 230 of the Criminal Act, since it cannot be viewed as an act of presentation in accordance with the purpose of its use, and it does not constitute an act of presentation of official documents as provided by Article 230 of the Criminal Act (the police officer who confirms that the vehicle reported on violating parking regulations is stolen, is waiting for the vehicle in his neighborhood, and the defendant demands the driver

Article 230 of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 5057 of Dec. 29, 1995), Articles 68 and 77 of the Road Traffic Act

Supreme Court Decision 88Do1593 Decided March 28, 1989 (Gong1989, 708), Supreme Court Decision 90Do1877 Decided May 28, 1991 (Gong1991, 1820), Supreme Court Decision 91Do1052 Decided July 12, 1991 (Gong1991, 2189), Supreme Court Decision 91Do3269 Decided November 24, 1992 (Gong193, 299)

Defendant

Defendant and Prosecutor

Seoul District Court Decision 96No2579 delivered on June 20, 1996

The defendant and prosecutor's appeals are dismissed.

1. We examine the Defendant’s grounds of appeal.

In light of the records, the court below is justified in the measures that recognized the defendant's criminal facts of this case, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete deliberation, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, or there is no violation of the law of fraud. All arguments are without merit.

2. Judgment on the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor

According to the provisions of Articles 68 and 77 of the Road Traffic Act, the driver's license is a certificate of passing the driver's license test and it is specified to carry it when the driver's license is driven, and the purpose of its presentation is to present it when the police officer is requested to do so. Thus, if the defendant acquires and holds another's driver's license under the name of a third party and presents it for identification upon the police officer's request for presentation, as recognized by the court below, the presentation of such driver's license does not constitute an unlawful uttering of official documents as provided by Article 230 of the Criminal Act, since it does not constitute an act of presentation according to the purpose of its use (see Supreme Court Decision 90Do1877 delivered on May 28, 191).

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just and there is no violation of law such as the theory of lawsuit.

3. Therefore, each of the appeals filed by the Defendant and the prosecutor is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)