(a) Implient criminal liaison and the sex of joint principal offenders;

(b) Where a public official who assists in the preparation of an official document submits a false draft of a document to his/her superior knowledge of the fact to approve it, thereby allowing him/her to prepare a false official document;

A. The conspiracy as a subjective requirement for the establishment of a co-principal is sufficient if there is an implicit communication between accomplices, directly or indirectly, with respect to the joint implementation of a crime.

B. In a case where a person who assists in the duties of a public official who is authorized to prepare an official document submits a draft of a document in which false contents are stated for the purpose of uttering by taking advantage of his position to the commercial person who is unaware of the circumstances, and allows the preparation of a false official document to approve it, the indirect offense committed by preparing a false official document is established, and the person who conspired to do so shall not be exempted

A. Article 30 of the Criminal Act; Articles 34 and 227 of the Criminal Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 85Do2371 delivered on December 24, 1985, Supreme Court Decision 85Do2421 delivered on January 28, 1986, Supreme Court Decision 74Do1900 delivered on December 13, 197

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Final Hun-Ba, Park Wil

Seoul High Court Decision 85No2512 delivered on November 27, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the Defendant’s defense counsel’s grounds of appeal.

According to the evidence of the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below and the judgment of the court of first instance, the defendant and the defendant of the court of the court below are not able to recognize the fact that the application form presented by the applicant for the issuance of ownership certificate in the judgment of the court of first instance is false even though they knew of the false fact, it is difficult to recognize the fact that they shared the crime as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is difficult to recognize the fact that the defendant and the co-defendant share the co-defendant's co-defendant's co-principal's co-principal's co-principal's co-principal's co-principal's co-principal's co-principal's co-principal's co-principal's co-principal's co-principal's co-principal's co-principal's co-principal's co-principal's co-principal's co-principal's co-principal's co-principal's co-principal's co-principal's co-principal's co-principal's relationship.

In addition, in case where a person who assists in the duties of a public official who has the authority to prepare a false document submits a draft of a document in which the false document was entered to his superior knowledge of the purpose of the exercise by using his position and approves it, and the person who conspireds to prepare a false public document shall not be exempted from the liability for the above crime (see Supreme Court Decision 74Do1900 delivered on December 13, 197). In the same purport, the measures taken by the court below against the defendant as an indirect accomplice of the preparation of a false public document are legitimate, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the preparation of a false public document, such as the theory of action. The argument is groundless.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Byung-su (Presiding Justice)