[1] The meaning of "to prepare documents under Article 2 (1) 1 through 3 of the former Certified Judicial Scriveners Act in return for the commission of another person"

[2] The case holding that "non-certified judicial scrivener's act of preparing and receiving a guarantee which is a document attached to a request for withdrawal of deposited goods in his/her and a third party's joint name while keeping a certified judicial scrivener's seal imprint and a certificate of seal imprint after obtaining it from a third party does not constitute "the case where non

[1] Article 51 (1) 1 of the former Certified Judicial Scriveners Act (amended by Act No. 5180 of Dec. 12, 1996) provides that a person who is not a certified judicial scrivener shall be punished as a business of preparing documents under Article 2 (1) 1 through 3 of the same Act in return for a commission of others in violation of Article 3 of the same Act, and shall be punished as a business of preparing documents under Article 2 (1) 1 through 3 of the same Act. The preparation of documents under the above subparagraphs at the commission of others means preparing documents under the above subparagraphs on behalf of others, and the payment means the preparation of documents under the above subparagraphs.

[2] The case affirming the judgment below which acquitted the defendant as to the violation of Article 51 (1) 1 of the former Certified Judicial Scriveners Act on the ground that, where the defendant, as a cause of a certified judicial scrivener, received a certificate of seal imprint and a certificate of seal imprint from a third party and received compensation at the request of the person who intends to request the withdrawal of the deposited goods and received the certificate, and the certificate was prepared in the name of the defendant himself and the third party, regardless of whether the notice of deposit was lost or the certificate of deposit was prepared in the joint name of the defendant himself and the third party, the certificate was prepared for submission to the court, but the defendant merely prepared the certificate of guarantee to be prepared as the principal or the third party as the guarantor, and it cannot be deemed that the defendant's remuneration received by the defendant is the consideration for the preparation of the certificate of deposit, and it cannot be deemed that the payment for the guarantee is the consideration for the preparation of the certificate of seal imprint and the certificate of seal imprint.

[1] Articles 2(1), 3, and 51(1)1 (see current Article 74(1)1) of the former Certified Judicial Scriveners Act (amended by Act No. 5180 of Dec. 12, 1996) / [2] Articles 2(1), 3, and 51(1)1 (see current Article 74(1)1) of the former Certified Judicial Scriveners Act (amended by Act No. 5180 of Dec. 12, 1996); Article 30 of the Rules on Handling Deposit Affairs

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendant and Prosecutor

Love General Law Firm, Attorneys Choi Jung-tae et al.

Suwon District Court Decision 95No260 delivered on June 8, 1995, and 95No260 delivered on June 15, 1995

The Prosecutor’s appeal against Defendant 2 is dismissed, and the prosecution against Defendant 1 is dismissed.

1. As to the prosecutor's ground of appeal on Defendant 2

Article 51 (1) 1 of the former Certified Judicial Scriveners Act (amended by Act No. 5180 of Dec. 12, 1996) provides that a person who is not a certified judicial scrivener shall be punished as a business of preparing documents under Article 2 (1) 1 through 3 of the same Act in return for a commission of others in violation of Article 3 of the same Act, and shall be punished as a business of preparing documents under Article 2 (1) 1 through 3 of the same Act. The preparation of documents under the above subparagraphs on commission of others means preparing documents under the above subparagraphs on behalf of others, and remuneration and the preparation of documents under the above subparagraphs shall mean the preparation of documents under the above subparagraphs.

According to the facts and records established by the court below, Defendant 2 received and stored his seal imprint and a certificate of seal imprint from the non-indicted 2, and received compensation at the request of those who intend to request the withdrawal of deposited goods and confirmed that he is the same as the deposited person as the deposited person stated in the deposit certificate or lost his notice of deposit. While the above letter of guarantee was prepared to be submitted to the court, the defendant prepared a certificate to be prepared by himself as the guarantor himself or as the same guarantor, and cannot be said to have been prepared on behalf of the person who intends to withdraw deposited goods. The defendant's remuneration received by the defendant cannot be deemed to be the consideration for the preparation of the letter of guarantee as the consideration for the guarantee of both the defendant and the same guarantor.

The judgment below to the same purport is correct and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles, such as theory of lawsuit.

2. As to Defendant 1

According to the certificate of death and resident registration submitted by a defense counsel, it is clear that the defendant died on June 25, 1996.

3. Accordingly, the Prosecutor’s appeal against Defendant 2 is dismissed, and the prosecution against Defendant 1 is dismissed in accordance with Article 382 and Article 328(1)2 of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)