[1] In a case where a public official document prepared by a public official and a private document prepared by an individual exist together with each other to have one probative value, whether the act of changing part of the document without authority constitutes a crime of forging a public document (affirmative)

[2] In a case where Gap sent a copy of Eul's personal information on Eul's behalf and Eul's photograph attached with Byung's photograph, together with Eul's photograph, to the investigator of the Board of Audit and Inspection by facsimile as explanatory materials, the case holding that the crime of forging and uttering an official document and obstruction of the performance of official duties by fraudulent means is established

[3] In a case where Gap received money from Byung in return for providing the personal information necessary for the illegal issuance of Byung's driver's license, the case holding that Gap's receipt of money is limited to the receipt of money between the accomplices of the crime of false entry in the license and does not constitute a bribe in the crime of mediation and bribery

[4] The case holding that the crime of forging a public document can only be established, and the crime of forging a public document can not be established, in case where Gap prepares and submits an application for the loss or re-delivery of a driver's license with the false content attached to Byung's photograph, and Eul's photograph was issued with a printed driver's license

[1] Even in cases where a document prepared by a public official and a document prepared by an individual are included in one document, in cases where the part of the individual document prepared by a public official is altered by the phrase of proof prepared by the public official, the crime of altering the official document is established. In such a case where the official document prepared by a public official and the private document prepared by an individual coexists together and both are recognized as one probative value, if the part prepared by an individual exists and the document is proved by the phrase of proof prepared by a public official, it shall be integrated with the official document and has one probative value. Thus, in cases where the part prepared by an individual becomes new probative value at all by changing the essential contents of the part that affects the probative value without authority, the crime of forging

[2] In a case where Gap sent a copy of Eul's personal information on Eul's behalf and Eul's photograph attached with Byung's photograph, together with Eul's photograph, to the investigator of the Board of Audit and Inspection by facsimile as evidence, the case holding that the crime of forging a public document and uttering of a forged public document is established when the copy of the public document with a separate probative value is used as evidence, and that the crime of forging a public document and uttering of a forged public document is established, and that the document actively submitted the evidence as if it was attached with Eul's photograph from the original point of time when the above request for delivery of the lost document was made.

[3] In a case where Gap received money from Byung in return for providing the personal information necessary for the illegal issuance of Byung's driver's license, the case holding that since the provision of personal information necessary for the issuance of the driver's license is irrelevant to the police officer Eul's duty, Eul cannot be the counter-party to the referral of bribery, and therefore, Gap's money is merely merely a receipt of money among the co-offenders of the crime of false entry into the driver's license, and it does not constitute a bribe in the referral of bribery

[4] The case holding that the crime of forging a public document can only be established, and the crime of forging a public document can not be established, in case where Gap prepared and submitted an application for the loss or re-issuance of a driver's license with the false content attached with Eul's personal information and the photograph attached to Byung's photograph, and Eul obtained a driver's license with a printed photograph

[1] Article 225 of the Criminal Act / [2] Articles 137, 225, and 229 of the Criminal Act / [3] Article 132 of the Criminal Act / [4] Articles 225 and 228 (2) of the Criminal Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 85Do1490 delivered on September 24, 1985 (Gong1985, 1459) / [4] Supreme Court Decision 70Do1759 delivered on September 29, 1970

Defendant 1 and two others

Kim aftermak Kim

Attorney Lee Han-han et al.

1. Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment for seven years, by imprisonment for one year and six months, and by imprisonment for one year and three years, respectively.

2. The number of days under detention prior to the pronouncement of this judgment shall be 186 days, the above sentence against Defendant 1, the above sentence against Defendant 2, and the 158 days, including the above sentence against Defendant 3.

3. The driver’s license that has been seized (the sequence 2, 2005. No. 2102 of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office) shall be forfeited from Defendant 1;

4. The sum totaling KRW 50,000,000 shall be collected from Defendant 1.

5. Of the facts charged in the instant case, each of the facts charged by Defendants 2 and 3 is not guilty as to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes against Defendants 2 and 3, the offering of a bribe to Defendant 1, the fact that each public document was committed on May 25, 2001 against the Defendants, and the uttering of forged public document, the fact that Defendant 1 was made on June 6, 2001 against Defendant 1, on February 28, 2005, on March 2005, and on March 1, 2005.

Defendant 1 was serving as a police official on August 17, 1992 on several recommendations from victims due to the bankruptcy of the Central Systrust on the management of the case, and Defendant 2 was serving at the National Police Agency's external department around May 2001; Defendant 3 was a police official who was serving at the National Police Agency's intelligence investigation team leader at the Seoul District Police Agency's office; Defendant 3 was serving at the information department at the Nowon-gu Police Agency's office and the information department chief at the information department at the Nowon-gu Police Agency on May 201;

1. Defendant 1:

A. At the time of the lack of flight funds while living under a false name, such as Non-Indicted 1, Defendant 3, etc. after the bankruptcy of the above (State) Central Mastrust and the failure to obtain money from others;

(1) In collusion with Nonindicted 2:

The facts are as follows: (a) there is no intention or ability to exempt the victim non-indicted 3 (year 31) who was under investigation of violation of the Securities and Exchange Act by the Securities Supervisory Board at the Seoul District Public Prosecutor's Office on February 20, 1998; (b) however, although the above victim did not have an intention or ability to exempt the investigation of detention, the above victim's non-indicted 2 is false to the effect that "I will not be detained upon the request of the prosecutor's high-ranking group because he was aware of a large number of people from the person in charge of the finance of the so-called "I will not be detained because I would like to request the prosecutor's high-ranking group; and (c) I would like to agree with the above purport that the defendant 1 also received all KRW 35 million from February 25, 1998 to July 1, 199 for the non-indicted 2's non-indicted 2.

around 14:00 on October 14, 1998, Defendant 1 falsely speaked to the effect that “the prosecution problem has been resolved almost all, and lastly, Defendant 1 will complete a clean with a fine on a face-to-face 9 million won, which shall be given to investigators,” Defendant 1 received from the above victim at the same place of the same time at around 14:00,00, as a rain fund, around 14:00;

(2) The facts are under such circumstances as above, even if the victim received money from Nonindicted 4 (the age of 42), he does not have an intention or ability to grant his right to operate a restaurant in the Embae race track:

On April 201, 200, the above victim made a false statement to the effect that "B is a special assistant officer of Non-Party 1, the standing member of the National Promotion Committee of the Republic of Korea, the President Consultation No. 2, and 20 million won will be subject to the right to operate a marina restaurant located in the Macheon Horse race track at the same place as the above victim around September 8, 200, at the Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan City newspaper, and that "B is a special assistant officer of Non-Party 1, the President Consultation No. 2, and 20 million won will be subject to the right to operate the Ma-based restaurant located in the building of the race track," and

B. In collusion with Nonindicted 5:

On April 201, 2001, 1 of the Jung-gu, Seoul, was detained by the victim non-indicted 6, who was the president of the Republic of Korea or the hotel coffee shop located in 61-1, and was tried by the Seoul District Court after having received the request from the victim non-indicted 7, who was under trial at the Seoul District Court, to hold a special face-to-face to the non-indicted 7, and accepted the request. At around that time, money and valuables were received from the above victim under the pretext of the case, and received from the above victim about the referral of matters belonging to the public official's duties.

C. (1) in collaboration with Co-defendant 4:

(A) At around 00:30 on May 24, 2005, Co-defendant 4 decided to detect Nonindicted 8 (Taking 30 years of age) who was under the influence of alcohol and take money and valuables from the said victim, she stops without opening a door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door for the said victim's bridge, and Defendant 1 was driving the said victim's her seat door door door door door door door door, she was off to the above victim's 1, Defendant 1 was forced to take rape, Defendant 1 was off the above victim's her seat door door door door door, Defendant 1 was forced to take off the above victim's her seat, Defendant 1 was forced to take off the victim's her seat door door, Defendant 1, Defendant 1's cell phone, Defendant 1 and Defendant 1 was off the above victim's seat door door door door door door door door.

(B) On the 25th day of the same month, around 01:00, in the street room in Gangnam-gu, Seoul, the victim non-indicted 9, who was used on the roadside floor under the influence of alcohol, and the victim 1, the victim 1, who was able to report the network around the surrounding area. Co-defendant 4, in cash from the back of the above victim 1, 300,000 US dollars, 10,000 US dollars, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1,00 cash card of the National Bank, and 1,000 Korean resident registration number, theft;

(C) On the 28th day of the same month, around 03:00, in the street in the vicinity of the steel basin in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, the victim Nonindicted 10 was found to be used on the roadside under the influence of alcohol, and the victim 1 was able to report to the victim in the surrounding area. Co-defendant 4 stolen one copy of cash from the victim's back money, 70,000 won, 1 bank, 1 bank, 1000 won, 40 credit card, and 1 locking one wall containing the resident registration certificate;

(D) On June 1 of the same year, around 00 00:00, in the street in the vicinity of the Saemaeul High School located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul, the victim Nonindicted 11 was found to be used on the roadside under the influence of alcohol, the victim 1 was able to report the network around the surrounding area by the victim, and Co-Defendant 4 20,000 won in cash from the occupation machine of the above victim, the national bank, the credit card of the National Bank, and the Agricultural Cooperative cash Card, and one wall containing one transportation card.

(2) in collaboration with Co-Defendant 4:

On May 24, 2005, at around 02:26, when purchasing oil at the gas station located in Seoul (Stop Address omitted), the credit card was forcibly used for 26 times from that time to February 33, 201: (a) the credit card was obtained from each of the victims, which was obtained from each of the victims, and was obtained from each of the victims, for the purpose of paying the price of oil at the same time as described in paragraph (1) (a) of the above sub-paragraph (1) and the co-defendant 4 signed the "non-indicted 8" on the signature column of the sales slip and made the co-defendant 4 to prepare the credit card sales slip to pay the price of oil to the legitimate holder; and (b) the co-defendant 4 acquired the oil of an amount of 50,000 won from each of the victims, who is the owner of the above gas station, as described in the list of crimes in the attached Table.

2. The defendant 2 or the same defendant 3 conspired:

Around February 7, 2003, the Board of Audit and Inspection (the auditor in charge of the audit at the Board of Audit and Inspection) conducted an examination on the facts of endorsement of one million won cashier's checks and the relationship with the persons related to the above case, including Non-Indicted 5, etc. from Non-Indicted 13, the auditor in charge of the audit at the Board of Audit and Inspection (the auditor in charge of the audit at the Board of Audit and Inspection). Defendant 2 and 3 stated that "the driver's license was lost on or around May 20, 201," and Defendant 3 stated that "the driver's license was lost on or around May 20, 201," and that the above non-Indicted 13 was demanded to submit the explanatory materials, with Defendant 2, the copy of the application for the issuance of the driver's license in the Seoul Western driver's license test at the same time as Defendant 2 conspired with the National Police Agency information 1 and Defendant 3 working at the office located in Seodaemun-gu Seoul National Police Agency around the same day.

A. For the purpose of exercising the right as an explanation to the Board of Audit and Inspection as above, Defendant 3’s agent at the above driver’s license test site as to the issuance of a copy of Defendant 2’s application for the loss or re-delivery of the driver’s license as of May 25, 2001. Defendant 1’s photograph on his photograph on the copy of the application for the loss or re-delivery of the above driver’s license without authority and the copy of the application without authority, thereby forging one copy of the application for the loss or re-delivery of the driver’s license, which is an official document proved by “verification of identification cards” prepared in the name of the Seoul Western driver’s license test site.

B. In the event that a copy of the application for the loss or re-delivery of a forged driver’s license has been duly formed to Nonindicted 13 of the said Board of Audit and Inspection without knowledge of such circumstance, the said Board of Audit and Inspection shall send it by facsimile to him

C. In relation to the permission of the driving range in the distribution storage basin from Nonindicted 14, the petitioner Nonindicted 14, received a petition from Nonindicted 5, Nonindicted 5, Nonindicted 15, the standing member of the National Committee for Promotion of the Korean People's Republic of Korea, and the head of Seocho-gu Office's flood prevention division, etc., and the above Nonindicted 5, etc., submitted to Nonindicted 13, etc., who were investigating the above Nonindicted 5, etc. on the charge of forging public documents, leakage of official secrets, fraud, etc., on May 20, 201, lost a driver's license and received a re-issuance on May 25, 201, and submitted a false confirmation. On the other hand, Nonindicted 13, etc., the auditor of the Board of Audit and Inspection, who is in charge of the Board of Audit and Inspection, did not find out the fact of the illegal issuance and the exercise of the driver's license with Defendant 1, and did it simply close with Defendant 3.

3. Defendant 1:

A. (1) around February 28, 2005, for the purpose of exercising the mobile phone base in the cell phone board prior to the subway station located in Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and for purchasing a mobile phone, without authority, let the said sales employee enter the terms of the contract, etc. in the form of the terminal installment contract kept in that place using the verification stamping pen, and then in the buyer column, “Defendant 3” is written in the buyer column, and a copy of the terminal installment contract in the name of Defendant 3, which is a private document on the rights and obligations, is forged;

(2) at the same time and at the same place, deliver a forged terminal installment contract to the above selling employee as in the preceding paragraph as if the contract was duly formed; and

나. (1) 같은 해 3. 초순경 서울 강남구 서초동 소재 뱅뱅사거리 부근에 있는 휴대전화기 가판대에서, 휴대전화기를 구입하는 데 행사할 목적으로, 권한 없이 그 곳에 비치된 가입신청서 용지에 검정색 볼펜을 사용하여 고객정보란에 “ 피고인 3, (주민등록번호 및 주소 생략)”라고 기재하고 고객성명란에 “ 피고인 3”라고 기재한 다음, 그 이름 옆에 서명을 하여 권리의무에 관한 사문서인 피고인 3 명의의 가입신청서 1장을 위조하고,

(2) in such time, at the same time and at the same place, deliver a forged application for membership to the said seller as if it were duly formed as in the preceding paragraph;

4. Defendant 2:

Co-Defendant 1’s assistance in the personnel affairs of his police and the disciplinary action was terminated. On November 8, 2001 and around the 9th day of the same month, Co-Defendant 1, 2001, the same kind of relationship was maintained, such as lending KRW 60 million to his police, and Non-Party 1, through the above Defendant 1, paid a total of KRW 50 million (the sum of KRW 40 million in the capital of Non-Party 17, the sum of KRW 18,000,000 in the capital of KRW 18,000,000 in the capital of Non-Party 16, which was the director of the Gyeonggi Police Agency at the time, requested the above Non-Party 16 to return KRW 50,000 in the capital of KRW 50,000,000,000, which was rejected, to make a false statement different from the facts in the civil lawsuit brought against the Defendant 16.

On July 14, 203: 10, Non-Party 1 was introduced to Non-Party 2's agent, "Non-Party 1 was present at the above court No. 452 at the Seocho-gu Seoul District Court's 202JE 3985, and the testimony was made after he was present as a witness of the above court's 199, he was informed of the above facts from Non-Party 1 to Non-Party 18 at the above court's 196, and Non-Party 1 was present at the defendant 1's questioning at the time of Non-Party 2's questioning of Non-Party 1', "The Non-Party 2 was present at the above 1's meeting of Non-Party 1'." The defendant 1 was not the defendant 1's agent's questioning of Non-Party 1 and the defendant 2's agent's answer to the above questions, and the defendant 1 was the defendant 1's agent's answer to the above questions."

[Fact 1 of Paragraph 1 of this Article] - [No. 2005 Gohap929]

1. Defendant 1’s legal statement

1. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol against Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 2

1. Each prosecutor’s statement about Nonindicted 4 and Nonindicted 3

1. Each police protocol on Nonindicted 19 and Nonindicted 16

1. Copies of cashier's checks;

[Fact of Paragraph 1-b at the Time of Sales] - [No. 2005 Highest 110]

1. Defendant 1’s legal statement

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 5 (including Nonindicted 6's statement)

1. Each prosecutor’s statement concerning Nonindicted 6

[Fact of Paragraph 1-C at the time of sale - [No. 2005Gohap564]

1. Defendant 1 and Co-Defendant 4’s each legal statement

1. All or part of the prosecutor's protocol of examination of the defendant 1 and co-defendant 4 (defendant 1) (defendant 4)

1. The prosecutor’s statement concerning Nonindicted 8

1. Each police’s statement on Nonindicted 8, Nonindicted 12, Nonindicted 20, Nonindicted 9, nuclear leather, and Nonindicted 11

1. Each written statement of Nonindicted 21, Nonindicted 22, Nonindicted 23, and Nonindicted 24

1. Statement of seizure of each police;

1. Each investigation report (specific report on the details of credit card use, specific report on the owner of seized articles, accompanied by a copy of a certificate of genetic search and appraisal, victim treatment, relative to a suspected vehicle, confirmation of the suspect, confirmation of the details of unlawful use of a card, cases of photographing seized articles, details of unlawful use of credit cards, and investigation into confirmation of credit card transfer slips);

[The first head in the market and the facts in paragraphs 2 and 3]

1. All or part of the Defendants (Defendant 1)’s legal statement (Defendant 2 and Kim Jong-ho)

1. Each legal statement of the witness, Nonindicted 25, Nonindicted 26, Nonindicted 27, Nonindicted 28, Nonindicted 29, Nonindicted 30, Nonindicted 31, Nonindicted 32, Nonindicted 33, Nonindicted 34, Nonindicted 35, and Nonindicted 36

1. Each of the Defendants’ written statements (including the statement of Nonindicted 25, 31, and 26) or part of the Defendants (Defendant 2 and Defendant 3) among the suspect interrogation protocol against the Defendants (including the statement of Nonindicted 25, 31, and 26)

1. Each prosecutor’s statement on Nonindicted 28, Nonindicted 37, Nonindicted 38, Nonindicted 39, and Nonindicted 40 (including the part on Defendant 1’s statement)

1. Each police protocol on Nonindicted 28, Nonindicted 26, Nonindicted 25, Nonindicted 21, Nonindicted 29, Nonindicted 18, Nonindicted 33, Nonindicted 40, Nonindicted 41, Nonindicted 42, Nonindicted 32, Nonindicted 27, Nonindicted 43, Nonindicted 30, and Nonindicted 44

1. Answers to Nonindicted 13’s written statements, written confirmations, and requests for the transmission of data

1. The inquiry report by the director of the Seoul Local Police Agency;

1. Report on investigation related to tracking of the account, report on the current status of tracking cashier's checks, warrant of applying a bank account and request for financial transaction information, etc. attached thereto, report on the results of confirmation, such as microfilms of cashier's checks, and report on the result of execution of seizure, search and inspection warrant;

1. An application form for loss re-delivery, a register of driver's licenses, a ledger of driver's licenses, a ledger of re-delivery, a ledger of computerized cars, a list of data on issuance, a list of requests for perusal, a written application for loss re-delivery for 98 years, a file of application for re-delivery of driver's licenses for 98 years, a report on loss and copy of a resident registration certificate, a written application for re-delivery of license for 200 years, a written application for

1. Each entry into the seized driver's license, the application form for re-delivery of loss and the register of re-delivery of loss for 98 years, the application form for re-delivery of loss for 201 and the register of re-delivery of loss for 200

[Fact of Paragraph 4 at the time of sale - 2005 Highest 1041]

1. The defendant 2's partial statement

1. Defendant 1, Nonindicted 45, Nonindicted 46, and Nonindicted 38’s respective legal statements

1. Of the transcript of the protocol of interrogation of Nonindicted 18’s suspect against the prosecution, the statements made by Nonindicted 18 and Defendant 1 in whole (Defendant 1) or in part (Nonindicted 18)

1. The entire (Defendant 1, Nonindicted 46, Nonindicted 38) or part (Defendant 18, Nonindicted 48, and Defendant 2) of the transcript of each prosecutor’s statement made against Nonindicted 18, Defendant 1, Nonindicted 46, Nonindicted 38, and Defendant 2 among the transcript of each prosecutor’s statement made against Defendant 2

1. Each copy of the application for payment order, each written confirmation, Defendant 1’s confirmation, and protocol of examination of witness in the Seoul District Court Decision 2002Da339895; and

1. A certified copy of business cooperation request, and a copy of communication data reply; and

1. Each investigation report (the confirmation report, such as the place of installation of telephone numbers omitted, and the report on the settlement account of telephone rates by Defendant 2);

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

A. Defendant 1

Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act [the point of fraud under 1. (1) and (c) (2) in the market, the point of imprisonment] Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act [the point of fraud under 1. (a) (2) in the market, the choice of imprisonment], Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of good offices under 1. (b) in the market, choice of imprisonment), Articles 5(2) of the Act on the Punishment, Protection, etc. of Sexual Crimes, Articles 334(2), 33, and 297 [the point of imprisonment, the point of joint robbery and rape under 1.c. (1) and (2) in the market, the point of choice of imprisonment, Article 31(2) and (3) in the market [the point of choice of imprisonment, Article 330(1) (3) in each of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act], Article 30(1 (2) of the Criminal Act}.

B. Defendant 2

Articles 225, 237-2, and 30 (A) of the Criminal Act; Articles 229, 225, 237-2, and 30 (a) of the Criminal Act (the use of forged public documents under Article 2-2(b) of the PO); Articles 137 and 30 (the use of obstruction of performance of official duties by deceptive means under Article 2-2(c) of the Criminal Act; the choice of imprisonment), Article 152(1) of the Criminal Act (the use of perjury under paragraph (4) of the POA and the choice of imprisonment)

C. Defendant 3

Articles 225, 237-2, and 30 of the Criminal Act (the use of the official document specified in subparagraph (a) of Article 2-2 at the time of sale), 229, 225, 237-2, and 30 (the use of the forged official document specified in subparagraph (b) at the time of sale) of the Criminal Act, Articles 137 and 30 (the use of the obstruction of performance of official duties by fraudulent means specified in subparagraph (c) of Article 2-2 at the time of sale, and the choice of imprisonment) of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

Defendants: Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act [In case of Defendant 1, the punishment against Defendant 1 shall be aggravated by concurrent crimes with punishment prescribed for the crime of uttering of forged official document with the largest punishment and the crime of violation of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection, etc. of Victims Thereof (Special Robbery, Rape, etc.)]

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Defendant 1: Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act

1. Calculation of days of detention;

Defendants: Article 57 of the Criminal Act

1. Land to be submerged;

Defendant 1: Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act [Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act provides for the forgery of each private document at the time of display, and Article 48(1)1 of the same Act does not belong to any

1. Ratification;

Defendant 1: Articles 13 and 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes

Judgment on Defendants’ assertion

1. Defendant 2’s perjury

A. Defendant 2’s assertion

Around December 1997, Defendant 1 was present at a youth conference organized by BBS, an organization affiliated with the National Police Agency, for the first time. At the time, Defendant 1 introduced himself as “Non-Indicted 1” and believed it as “non-Indicted 1,” and he was not aware of the fact that he was the number of times. After that, Defendant 1’s introduction, which was prepared for a civil lawsuit to receive KRW 50 million from Non-Indicted 16 on August 30, 2002, which was prepared to receive a confirmation letter from Non-Indicted 16 on July 30, 202, which was prepared to receive by facsimile a confirmation letter from Non-Indicted 16 on July 30, 202, and became aware of the fact that he was the name of Defendant 1 and his number of times. Accordingly, the testimony in the above civil procedure is not a perjury.

(b) Markets:

(1) The date, time, and place at which Defendant 1 first met

Defendant 1 consistently stated that he was aware of Defendant 2 from May 196 to June 18, 196 at the same place of business in Yongsan-gu (Seoul, 10-1) by introducing Nonindicted 18 located in Yongsan-gu. In light of the following: (a) there is no reason for Defendant 1 to make a false statement about the first time and place of the investigation of the case where the driver’s license issued on May 25, 2001 became problematic; and (b) there was no fact that the BS’s meeting was opened to help the head of the 6th hotel on December 197, 197 (the testimony of Nonindicted 45); (c) there was no possibility for Defendant 2 to be present at the 6th anniversary of the fact that Nonindicted 1 was the first time in the name of Nonindicted 2, a public official, and there was no possibility for Defendant 1 to be present at the 10th anniversary of the fact that he had been present at the 10th anniversary of the above opening of business (the above 10th executive officer’s meeting).

(2) The name of Defendant 1 and his identity

(A) Defendant 1 did not think of the name of “Non-Indicted 1” in May 2, 1996 through June, 196. Defendant 1 stated consistently that the name of “Non-Indicted 1” was met with Non-Indicted 18, which was well known from the time when the Non-Indicted 1 was employed, and thus, Defendant 1 was bound to introduce Defendant 1 as “Defendant 1” as this name, and Defendant 2 was issued two driver’s licenses in order to assist Defendant 2 in avoiding the designated number of times, and notified Defendant 2 of the concentration control period, and Defendant 1 broadcasted in TV disclosure broadcast program around January 20, 199, Defendant 1 was able to escape life with a well-known knowledge of the fact that Defendant 1 was multiple times in his name, including setting up the video tape and setting up the temporary telephone in his own name.

(B) From around 1998 to Defendant 1’s request, Nonindicted 46, who frequently opened Defendant 1’s house, and from around 1996, Nonindicted 38, who was an exemplary taxi engineer of Defendant 1, was also able to help Defendant 2 visit Defendant 1’s house several times from around 1998 to her bottom, and install a telephone, etc., and Defendant 1 made a statement consistent with Defendant 1’s statement.

(C) In addition, according to the above evidence, the following facts are acknowledged: (a) Defendant 2 installed a telephone at Defendant 1’s home on January 28, 1999 immediately after the broadcast of the said TV disclosure channel; (b) on March 4, 2002, at around 14:20, Defendant 2 set the scope of search to “Defendant 1,” Defendant 1,” and met several times on March 4, 2002, and at around 14:23 of the same day, Defendant 2 met with “Defendant 1, the date of birth omitted; and (c) obtained a driver’s license from Defendant 1 on two occasions on 198 and around February 2001; and (d) around around 1998, Defendant 1 loaned 60 million won to Defendant 1 without any documentary evidence, such as a loan certificate, etc.

(D) On October 14, 2005, Defendant 2 stated that “Although at the request of Defendant 1, who used the above phone call, Defendant 2 sent personal information on the empty lot before the telephone station, it was unaware of who used the phone call, it was used for the telephone call (No. 2005 type No. 76873, No. 119283).” On October 20, 2005, it is difficult to reverse Defendant 2’s resident registration number without any special reason to obtain interest on KRW 60 million from Defendant 1. However, it is difficult to reverse Defendant 2’s personal information without any reason to inform Defendant 2 of his/her personal information, such as the transfer of personal information, within the phone call (the same investigation record No. 315 page).” However, it is difficult to reverse Defendant 2’s personal information without any reason to understand his/her resident registration number.

(E) In addition, on March 4, 2002, Defendant 2 made several inquiries to Defendant 1 on or around February 4, 2002, Defendant 2: (a) on or around February 3, 2002, Defendant 1 was unable to know the whereabouts; (b) on the part of Defendant 1, Defendant 1’s name and the lawsuit that Defendant 1 was born; and (c) on the part of Defendant 1, Defendant 2 did not know whether Defendant 1 was Defendant 1; (d) on March 4, 2002, Defendant 2 made several inquiries to Defendant 1, “the date of birth omitted)” to “the date of birth of Defendant 1; and (e) on the part of Defendant 2, the date of birth of Defendant 1 was accurately identified as “the date of birth of Defendant 1”; and (e) on the part of Defendant 2, Defendant 1 appears to have been aware of the personal information and the number of births that were merely the date of birth of Defendant 3.

(F) All of the above facts are deemed to support the credibility of Defendant 1’s statement, where Defendant 2 recognized that Defendant 1’s principal name and the fact that he had been well aware of the fact that he had been the jury’s disturbance.

(3) Conclusion

Therefore, Defendant 2’s testimony as to the first time and place of delivery, and the testimony that Defendant 1 became aware of Defendant 1’s principal name and the number of times before August 2002 can be sufficiently recognized as false testimony contrary to memory. Thus, Defendant 2’s above assertion cannot be accepted.

2. The crimes of forging official documents and uttering of forged official documents on February 7, 2003, and the crimes of obstruction of performance of official duties by fraudulent means on February 7, 2003

A. Defendant 2 and 3's assertion

(1) Defendant 2 confirmed at Defendant 3’s request on February 7, 2003 that Defendant 1 attached Defendant 1’s photograph to the letter of license examination on May 25, 2001. However, Defendant 2 asserted that there was no collusion with Defendant 3 with the Board of Audit and Inspection by attaching Defendant 3’s photograph attached to the copy of the above request for the delivery of loss.

(2) Defendant 3 conspired with Defendant 2 on February 7, 2003, copied Defendant 3’s photograph on May 25, 2001 and sent them by facsimile to the Board of Audit and Inspection. However, Defendant 3’s application for the delivery of the loss was a private document with Defendant 2’s private document and a photograph attached thereto, and it is only a private document, so even if a copy was replaced, the crime of forging and uttering of the public document cannot be established. Nonindicted 13’s auditor cannot be deemed as having interfered with the execution of official duties by the above act because he investigated the appeal case against the director of the Seocho-gu Office Disaster Prevention Division, etc. who is not related to the issuance of the instant driver’s license. Defendant 3 did not have any intention to obstruct the execution of official duties by fraudulent means, and thus, the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties by fraudulent means cannot be established.

(b) Markets:

(1) Whether the crime of forging an official document and uttering an forged official document is established

In a case where a document prepared by a public official and a document prepared by an individual are included in one document, if the part of the personal document prepared by a public official is altered by the phrase of proof prepared by the public official (see Supreme Court Decision 85Do1490, Sept. 24, 1985). In such a case where a public document prepared by a public official and a private document prepared by an individual exist together and both parties have a single probative value, if the part prepared by an individual is proved by the phrase of proof prepared by the public official, it shall be combined with the public document and has one probative value. Thus, in a case where the intrinsic contents of the part that affects probative value are altered by changing it without authority, and thereby, the crime of forging a public document are established.

With respect to this case, it is reasonable to view that Defendant 2’s personal information on behalf of Defendant 3 and attached Defendant 1’s photograph. However, in addition, Nonindicted 28 and Nonindicted 26’s public official in charge of the above license examination place sign or seal on the “verification of identification cards” and “written approval” column of the above missing application, the above public official’s photograph and personal information are identical to Defendant 3’s identification card, and it is proved that Defendant 1’s receipt was completed, compared with the above public official’s identification card.” As such, the part of Defendant 1’s photograph in the above missing application on behalf of Defendant 3, which affected probative value by the portion of the above public official’s written statement, such as “the confirmation of identification cards” and “the copy of the above missing application form, which was copied by Defendant 3 on the copy of the copy of the above missing application form, thereby confirming that Defendant 3’s public official’s personal information attached to the document was identical with the original document’s use of his photograph and its probative value.”

(2) Whether the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties by fraudulent means is established

Even if a suspect or a witness states false facts to an investigative agency or presents false evidence for the purpose of proving the existence of a suspect, etc., if the investigative agency made a wrong conclusion only with such false statements and evidence without making a sufficient investigation, this would result in insufficient investigation by the investigative agency, and thus, cannot be deemed as impeding the investigation by fraudulent means, and thus, the crime of obstructing the performance of official duties by fraudulent means is not established. However, if the suspect or witness actively makes a false investigation by manipulating and submitting the false evidence, and the investigative agency conducted a faithful investigation as a result of the manipulation of evidence, even if the investigation agency conducted a faithful investigation as to the authenticity of the evidence, it would result in the erroneous conclusion because the submitted evidence was not discovered, it would actively interfere with the investigation by fraudulent means and thereby constitute the crime of obstructing the performance of official duties by deceptive means (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do1609, Jul. 25, 2003).

As to the instant case, the Board of Audit and Inspection at the time discovered that part of the check at issue among the investigation on Nonindicted 14’s petition, which was conducted by Nonindicted 3, had been endorsed in the name of Defendant 3, and heard the circumstances. Defendant 3, in collusion with Defendant 2 on May 2001, submitted an application for the loss or re-delivery of Defendant 1’s photograph, and provided Defendant 1’s photograph to Defendant 1, and around that time, did not lose his driver’s license. However, on May 20, 201, Nonindicted 13 did not appear to the effect that the above investigation was conducted on the part of the check at issue, which was conducted on the re-execution of the driver’s license, and that the aforementioned investigation was conducted on the non-indicted 13, which was conducted on the non-indicted 3’s request for the above non-indicted 13 who did not directly interfere with the above investigation, and thus, it did not appear that the above investigation was conducted on the non-indicted 3’s request for delivery of a copy of the above non-indicted.

(3) Whether Defendant 2 conspired

On February 7, 2003, Defendant 2 issued a driver's license with Defendant 1's photograph and asked Defendant 1 to forge and exercise the copy of the above loss delivery application at the restaurant after Non-Party 18 went on the same day. Defendant 3 presented that Defendant 2 had issued a driver's license to Defendant 2 by telephone from the Board of Audit and Inspection on February 6, 2003 and telephone to Defendant 2 on February 7, 2003. Defendant 2 stated that "the fact that Defendant 3 obtained a driver's license with Defendant 3's photograph and gave it to Defendant 1" at the license examination site on February 7, 2003, and that Defendant 2 reversed Defendant 2's issuance of the driver's license with Defendant 1's photograph and the reason that Defendant 1's photograph attached to the application for the loss of the above vehicle was proved within the time limit of the aforementioned public offering or re-issuance.

Although the statements made by Defendant 3 do not coincide with the investigative agency of Defendant 2, which is direct evidence as to Defendant 2’s public offering, it is difficult to judge that Defendant 3’s above statements were not reliable because Defendant 3 reversed the above statements. As above, the credibility of the statements should be determined by comprehensively considering the reasons and background behind the reversal of the statements, and whether any of the statements, which were contradictory to the objective circumstances, is reasonable in light of the empirical rule.

Therefore, considering the following facts: (a) Nonindicted Party 2’s statement was reversed at the time and place of the crime; (b) Nonindicted Party 2’s statement to the Board of Audit and Inspection; (c) Nonindicted Party 2’s statement to the effect that it was not possible to reverse Nonindicted Party 3’s request for the above-mentioned testimony; and (d) Nonindicted Party 2’s statement to the effect that Nonindicted Party 3’s statement was lost or destroyed on June 7, 2003; and (d) Nonindicted Party 2’s statement to the effect that it was difficult for the Board of Audit and Inspection to reverse Nonindicted Party 3’s request for the above-mentioned testimony; and (e) Nonindicted Party 2’s statement to the effect that Nonindicted Party 4 and Nonindicted Party 3’s statement to the effect that it was not timely issued for the purpose of Defendant 2’s statement to the effect that it was not timely issued; and (e) Nonindicted Party 2’s statement to the effect that it was not timely issued due to Nonindicted Party 3’s statement and its loss.

1. The violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) by Defendant 2 and 3 and the violation of the offering of bribe by Defendant 1

A. Summary of the facts charged

(1) Defendants 2 and 3 [Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery)]

Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 conspireds on May 2001 to get a driver's license to be used as a substitute for identification at the driver's license test site in Mapo-gu Seoul Western-dong, Mapo-gu, Seoul. Defendant 2 conspireds with Defendant 1 to receive a driver's license to be used as a substitute for identification at the driver's license test site. Defendant 2, as police officers, was working at the Seoul Dobong-dong Department and the functional team as of May 2001. Defendant 32, the director of the driver's license test site in Seoul Western-gu, Seoul, and was working at the National Police Agency outside of the National Police Agency for more than 10 years. Defendant 1, the above Defendant 3, who was a police officer, was issued a driver's license in the form of loss or re-issuance in the name of Defendant 3, who was a police officer, at the driver's license test site in Seoul Seo-gu, and consented to the above Defendant 1's issuance of a driver's license to other public officials on the same month and 1.

(2) Defendant 1 (the offering of bribe)

Defendant 1 offered a bribe in relation to the arrangement of matters falling under the duties of other public officials to the public officials by providing a sum of KRW 18 million around June 29, 200, KRW 200,000,000,000,000,000 for the first time, place, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3 at the time, time, place, as mentioned in the preceding paragraph, on May 201, 201, KRW 500,000,000,000,000,000

(b) Markets:

(1) Whether Defendant 2 and 3 received KRW 18 million in return for the issuance of a driver’s license from Defendant 1

(A) Defendant 1, upon Defendant 2’s request for the issuance of a driver’s license, stated that Defendant 2 should give KRW 15 million to Defendant 3 in return for providing personal information. On May 23, 2001, Defendant 1 consistently stated that around May 23, 2001, Defendant 2 obtained a driver’s license and gave 15 copies of the KRW 15 million check again received by Defendant 2.

(B) As a result of Defendant 1’s account tracking conducted on the basis of the above statement, on May 4, 2001, on the 2nd cashier’s check issued by Defendant 1, Defendant 1, on May 4, 2001, entered the endorsement of Defendant 2, Nonparty 48, and Defendant 17, on the 30 million won check acquired by Defendant 39,000 won, and the 1 million won check was exchanged with Defendant 1’s KRW 100,000,00 won check, and the 500,000 won check was deposited into Defendant 2’s account around May 23, 201; Defendant 1, on the 100,000 won check issued by Defendant 1, Defendant 2, on the 400,000 won check issued by Defendant 1, Defendant 1, and Defendant 2, on the 100,000 won check issued by Defendant 1, Defendant 2, Defendant 401.

(C) As to the money transaction with Defendant 1, from August 1998 to January 1, 199, Defendant 2 lent KRW 60 million to Defendant 1 three times, and excluded from the return of KRW 20 million around November 2001, Defendant 2 stated that the unpaid amount of KRW 3 to 4 times or 5 million was at least KRW 35 million at one time, and that the above bank was at least KRW 5 million (No. 5 rights of investigation record, KRW 1,677, KRW 1,697), and that the above bank was at least KRW 00,000,000 won and the above bank was at least KRW 60,000,000,000 more than KRW 5,000,000,000,000 more than KRW 20,000,000,000,000 more than KRW 60,000,00.

(D) In addition, with respect to the transfer of KRW 5 million from July 6, 2001 to Defendant 3, Defendant 3 asserted that Defendant 2 borrowed money from Defendant 2, while Defendant 2 asserted that Defendant 3 repaid money from Defendant 3, Defendant 2’s statement is inconsistent with each other. In light of the two parties’ relationship, occupation, property level, etc., it is also difficult to accept that two persons, who did not have any monetary transaction, made a full opposite to each other on the loan relationship with a lot of money amounting to KRW 5 million, except that they returned to the two persons’ real estate located in the place of strike, in light of the two persons’ relationship, occupation, and property level, etc.

(E) Therefore, it is difficult to accept Defendant 2 and 3’s argument that Defendant 1 did not receive KRW 15 million with respect to Defendant 1’s driver’s license (However, the prosecutor charged Defendant 1 with the total amount of KRW 18 million with the face value of the above check, which was confirmed to have been transferred to Defendant 2, but Defendant 1 consistently stated that Defendant 1 issued 15 copies of the face value check. While the above check includes KRW 10 million, it is difficult to conclude that all of the above checks were given and received in return for issuance of the driver’s license).

(2) Whether the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) and the crime of offering of bribe is established

With respect to this part of the facts charged, the prosecutor prosecuted the prosecution by applying Article 2(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Article 132 of the Criminal Act. Article 132 of the Criminal Act is a crime established when the public official gives, receives, demands, or promises property concerning the referral of matters belonging to the duties of another public official by taking advantage of his/her position. In order to establish the above referral acceptance, a public official should use his/her status as a public official who is in a relationship which is legally or actually affected by the performance of affairs handled by another public official (see Supreme Court Decision 9Do5294, Oct. 12, 2001). The matters to be mediated are matters belonging to the duties of another public official, and the money and valuables should be received in return for the arrangement of such matters.

However, this part of the facts charged states that Defendant 2 received a driver's license in the name of Defendant 3 by using the fact that Defendant 2 had worked in the Dobong License Examination Station, and Nonindicted 32 and Nonindicted 10 years or longer at the Seoul Western driver's license test site, and Defendant 1 paid the honorarium to Defendant 2 under the above name. As such, Defendant 1 presented the above Nonindicted 32 as the other party to the solicitation or mediation, Defendant 2 and 3 as the consignee, and Defendant 1 as the consignee, and Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 as the person who provided the bribe to Defendant 2 and 3.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that Defendant 2 and 3 expressed that they would receive a driver’s license in favor of Nonindicted 32 in connection with the duties handled by Nonindicted 32, such as the issuance of a driver’s license, or that they received the said money and valuables in consideration of such intermediary activities, or that Defendant 1 gave the said money and valuables in consideration of such intermediary activities.

In other words, with respect to the issuance of driver's license, Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 denied the fact that they demanded or received money and valuables from Defendant 1, and Defendant 1 consistently asked Defendant 2 to make a driver's license around May 2001, and Defendant 2 failed to obtain the permission from Defendant 3, but Defendant 3 can obtain the permission on the basis that the degree of KRW 20 million is economically difficult, and Defendant 3 might obtain the permission on the basis that the consultation would be sufficient at a level of KRW 15 million, and on May 23, 2001, delivered KRW 15 million to Defendant 2 in return for providing personal information necessary for the issuance of the driver's license.

According to the above statement by Defendant 1, Defendant 2 and Defendant 1 received KRW 15 million from Defendant 3 in return for Defendant 3’s participation in the above crime by providing personal information necessary for the crime for which Defendant 2 and Defendant 1 received a driver’s license. This is merely a monetary receipt made between the accomplices of the crime of false entry in the driver’s license, and thus can be considered as the element of sentencing. However, it does not constitute a bribe in the crime of good offices and bribery (the provision of personal information necessary for the issuance of the driver’s license is irrelevant to the duties of Defendant 3, a police officer, and thus, Defendant 3 cannot become the counterpart to the solicitation or good offices).

(3) Conclusion

Therefore, Defendant 2 and 3 received money and valuables from Defendant 1 in return for the act of good offices or provided money and valuables to Defendant 2 and 3 in return for the act of good offices, each of the facts charged under the premise that Defendant 1 provided money and valuables to Defendant 2 and 3 constitutes a case where there is no proof of criminal facts, and thus, each of the facts charged

2. On May 25, 2001, the defendants forged official documents by forging and uttering an application form for the loss or re-delivery of a driver's license on May 25, 2001, and the use of forged official documents by using a forged driver's license on May 25, 2001, and the use of forged official documents by Defendant 1's use of forged driver's license

A. Summary of the facts charged

(1) On May 15, 2001, Defendant 1 conspireds with the Defendants to forge the driver’s license and asked Defendant 2 to forge the driver’s license, provided two photographs and two money and valuables, and Defendant 2 consented to this and received a copy of the identification card containing his personal information from Defendant 3 and his mother around that time. On the 25th day of the same month, around 14:00, at the window for the delivery for the loss of the driver’s license for the Seoul Western-dong Seoul Western-dong driver’s license.

(A) Defendant 2: (a) stated Defendant 3’s personal information in the personal information column of the application for the issuance of the driver’s license kept in that place without authority; (b) attached the photograph of Defendant 1 to the photograph column; (c) submitted it to Nonindicted 28, a public official in charge of the loss or re-issuance of the driver’s license; and (d) requested Nonindicted 28, who was aware of the applicant’s identification card from the above Nonindicted 28, to Nonindicted 32; (c) made Nonindicted 26, a public service center at the place where the photograph of the above application was known to Defendant 1, to verify that the applicant was the applicant’s personal information; and (d) made Nonindicted 28, a public official in charge of the loss or re-delivery of the above application via Nonindicted 26, by deceiving Nonindicted 28 as Defendant 3, who was aware of the fact that the photograph of the application was lost; and (e) made Nonindicted 28, a public service official in charge of the driver’s license test in the name column of the above application; and (iii) made Nonindicted 26) sign.

(B) Defendant 2, upon filing an application for re-issuance of a driver’s license, presented to the above non-indicted 28 who is aware of the fact that the application form for re-issuance of a forged driver’s license was duly formed as stated in the preceding paragraph, carries out a forged

(C) For the purpose of exercising authority, Defendant 2, without authority, committed as if he were Defendant 3 by delivering two photographs of Defendant 1 to the above non-indicted 28 and a public official who is the manufacturer of the driver’s license, who is unaware of the fact, along with the written application for the loss or re-delivery of the driver’s license. Defendant 2 forged a public document by issuing one copy of the driver’s license (name number omitted) which is a public document under the name of the director of the Seoul National Police Agency, on which Defendant 1’s photograph is attached to Defendant 3’s personal information from the person in charge of the above license examination site;

(2) Defendant 1:

(A) On June 2001, the police officer, who was not aware of the fact, received a non-examination from the police officer due to the name of the police officer in the place near the Busan in order to present the forged vehicle driver's license as if it was duly formed, exercising a forged official document by presenting the forged vehicle driver's license as if it was duly formed.

(B) around February 28, 2005, in purchasing one cell phone from a mobile phone set in the subway shift station located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Seocho-gu, Seocho-gu, and exercising a forged official document by presenting the forged driver’s license as if it was duly formed to a sales employee who is unaware of such fact while purchasing one cell phone from a mobile phone set in the subway shift station located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government;

(다) 같은 해 3. 초순경 서울 강남구 서초동 소재 뱅뱅사거리 부근에 있는 휴대폰 판매 가판대에서, 휴대폰 1대를 구입하면서 그 정을 모르는 성명불상의 판매직원에게 위와 같이 위조한 자동차 운전면허증을 마치 진정하게 성립한 것처럼 제시하여 위조공문서를 행사하였다.

B. Defendants’ assertion

(1) Defendant 1

On June 23, 2001, when the validity period of the driver’s license issued upon Defendant 2’s request was expired and around May 2001, Defendant 2 asked Defendant 2 to grant KRW 15 million to Defendant 3, and Defendant 2 gave to Defendant 2 the KRW 15 million on May 23, 2001, and thereafter, Defendant 3’s personal information and Defendant 1’s photograph were printed by Defendant 2.

(2) Defendant 2

On May 25, 2001, Defendant 3, who met with the National Police Agency, received resident registration certificates and photographs from Defendant 3 to request the issuance of a driver's license on behalf of the National Police Agency, and prepared an application for the delivery of loss in the capacity of agent at the book license examination site, and attached Defendant 3's photograph. Nonindicted 32 in the test site, who was not an employee, received Defendant 3's driver's license that was normally issued after the lapse of 20 to 30 minutes, and transferred the application and photographs to Defendant 3, while Defendant 1 did not receive Defendant 1's photograph printed.

(3) Defendant 3

At the National Police Agency around May 25, 2001, Defendant 2, who met with the National Police Agency, has been uninfluenced by Defendant 2's request for a copy of the resident registration certificate, and there was no delegation of the issuance of the above temporary driver's license on behalf of the National Police Agency, and the fact of the issuance of the above driver's license was also uninfluent.

C. Determination on the facts charged itself

(1) Whether Defendant 3’s driver’s license was issued on June 30, 1998 by Defendant 2 in an unlawful manner

Defendant 1, as well as Defendant 2’s driver’s license of May 25, 2001, which was issued on June 30, 1998 by Defendant 2’s use of Defendant 3’s personal information, also asserted that Defendant 2 had been issued the instant driver’s license upon Defendant 2’s request again after the expiry of the validity period. Defendant 2 stated that Defendant 2 was not aware of the circumstances leading up to the issuance of the instant driver’s license of June 30, 1998. As such, it is necessary to examine whether Defendant 3’s driver’s license of June 30, 198 was issued by Defendant 2 in an unlawful manner with respect to the credibility of the statements by the two persons. Thus, this issue is first examined.

(A) Basic facts

According to each evidence of the submission by the prosecutor, the following facts are recognized:

① On June 1998, at the Dowing License examination site, the applicant applied for re-issuance of the driver’s license for reasons of loss, indicating the applicant’s identification card and the completion of confirmation in the column for confirming and confirming the applicant’s identification card, and where the applicant fails to verify his/her identification card, he/she must possess his/her identification card and receive it at the time of receipt, and after receiving it, he/she manufactured the driver’s license through comparison with the license ledger kept in the above license examination site and made the applicant receive the driver’s license

② On June 16, 1998, the application for re-issuance of the driver’s license, which was kept in the Dobong License Examination Book, was prepared by Nonindicted 30, who was a public official in the function of the above license examination site, on behalf of Defendant 3, on behalf of Defendant 3. The photograph column of the above application is accompanied by Defendant 1’s photograph, and the confirmation column of identification card is blank, and the registration certificate is written on the right upper corner.

③ A copy of Defendant 3’s resident registration certificate copied with Defendant 1’s photograph attached to the original copy of the application for delivery of missing materials is accompanied by facsimile. On June 30, 1998, the date and time of receipt by facsimile as stated in the upper end of each of the above facsimile documents is 10:29 on the same day as 10:26 on June 30, 1998, and the sending facsimile number is the facsimile number with the National Police Agency outside the National Police Agency where Defendant 2 had been employed at the time, and the department in charge of issuing the lost driver’s license is stated in the facsimile document sent by facsimile.

④ On June 30, 1998, Defendant 3 received a driver’s license issued by the application for the delivery of the said loss on June 30, 1998 in the issuance register of the driver’s license kept in the Dowing License Examination Book. The recipient recorded on the same page of the above ledger stated that Defendant 30,000 won received the driver’s license by affixing a seal or seal, against the receipt of the driver’s license.

⑤ The persons related to the above license examination site stated that the time has long been long, and that they could not completely memory the details of the issuance of the above driver’s license and what problems the issuance process.

(b) the sales board;

① Whether Defendant 3’s driver’s license has been illegally issued on June 30, 1998

In light of the fact that Defendant 1’s photograph is attached to the original copy of the above request for the delivery of the driver’s license, and that the part of the application is removed from a clean or damaged one’s photograph without any consent, and that it is not possible to find out at all other photograph attached to it. The above request for the issuance of the driver’s license is blank and the original copy of the application is accompanied only by facsimile documents of the resident registration certificate received on June 30, 1998, which is the date of receipt of the driver’s license. In light of the fact that the original copy of the application is accompanied by only the facsimile documents of the resident registration certificate received on June 30, 1998, it seems highly likely for the petitioner to not hold the resident’s resident registration certificate at the time of receipt of the above request for the issuance of the driver’s license, the other petitioners who received the driver’s license on the same day on the date on which the above request for the issuance of the driver’s license was made with a simple signature or seal attached to the above request for the issuance of the driver’s license.

(2) A person who has obtained the above driver's license.

In light of the fact that the person who received the above driver's license is not able to deliver the driver's license in a normal procedure due to the lack of identification card at the time of the application and the receipt of the above driver's license, it is highly likely that the person who received the above driver's license will be able to provide convenience, such as filling out the application for the replacement of the driver's license. In light of the fact that the driver's license is issued the driver's license even though it is impossible to deliver the driver's license due to a normal procedure due to the lack of identification card at the time of the application and receipt of the above driver's license, the confirmation of the identification card is replaced by facsimile and a brief signature is replaced by the recipient's confirmation procedure.

(B) In addition, the National Police Agency’s Office document attached to the above application form stated that the facsimile document in Chapter 2, attached to the above application form, was sent by the office of the National Police Agency, and only the second received facsimile document is stated as “outline of receipt of the face-to-face”. Thus, if the person in charge of the license examination site who requested the issuance of the license at the time of receipt of the first facsimile document without the reception department asks the person who requested the issuance of the license form, the possibility that the facsimile was sent again by means of entering the “outline of receipt of the face-to-face” or the person who requested the issuance of the license form, stated the “outline of receipt of the face-to-face” as “outline of receipt of the face-to-face”, may consider the possibility of sending the facsimile document again by stating the “outline of receipt of the face-to-face” as “out of the face-face receipt of the face-to-face receipt” and considering that the time is three minutes.

B. On the other hand, Defendant 2 had been employed in the National Police Agency outside of the Korea National Police Agency at the time, and had been employed in the Dobong License Examination Station for one year. Since these circumstances coincide with Defendant 1’s statement that Defendant 2 had been issued at the license examination site where Defendant 2 was employed, Defendant 2 can be sufficiently recognized that Defendant 2 had been awarded the above driver’s license upon Defendant 1’s request.

① Determination on different possibilities of Defendant 2’s assertion

First, Defendant 2 asserted that the above facsimile document is likely to be operated by an investigative agency. However, the original copy of the written application for the delivery of missing documents is accompanied by the two facsimile documents received at intervals of three minutes as seen earlier, and among which, among which, Defendant 2 is attached to the original copy of the written application for delivery of missing facsimile documents planned to bring Defendant 2 into a criminal, it is difficult to accept the above assertion by Defendant 2, even though there is no reason to attach the original copy of the written application for delivery of missing facsimile documents, all of the documents are attached to the written application for delivery of missing documents even though there is no reason to attach the original copy of the written application for delivery of missing facsimile documents to the second documents with the body of the sender’s body. In light of the fact that there is no reason to believe that the above facsimile document was operated and there is no reason to leave the body of the sender, it is difficult to accept the above assertion by Defendant 2.

(B) Second, Defendant 2 asserted that Defendant 1, a police officer at risk of risk without any consideration, did not have any reason to obtain a driver’s license. However, Defendant 2 stated that Defendant 1 lent KRW 60 million to Defendant 1 without obtaining a loan from Defendant 1 on or around October 7, 2003. Defendant 2 stated that the aforementioned loan was made with testimony in civil litigation on or around October 7, 2003, that Defendant 1 had a personnel order issued after indicating personnel issues to Defendant 1, and that it was concluded as a minor disciplinary action after considering the internal disciplinary issue, and that Defendant 1 was regarded as being highly able and reliable, and that Defendant 1 lent KRW 60 million. In light of these circumstances, even if Defendant 2 did not receive monetary compensation, it is difficult to understand that Defendant 2 was able to resolve his personnel issues, and that Defendant 1 was able to receive a driver’s license with a view to obtaining a loan from Defendant 60 million.

As to this point, Defendant 2 asserted that the aforementioned testimony was made by taking advantage of the fact that he did not cause difficulties due to personnel affairs, and that Defendant 1 did not think that he would have resolved the personnel affairs. However, the above assertion is obviously contrary to the entry of the witness examination protocol in the above civil procedure, and it is difficult to accept, and as such, the circumstance that Defendant 2 lent KRW 60 million to Defendant 1 without receiving a loan certificate is rather a circumstance to see that Defendant 2 was well aware of Defendant 1’s personal information.

Thirdly, Defendant 2 is in the form of application for the aforementioned loss re-delivery. On May 25, 2001, Defendant 2 applied to Defendant 2 as his agent. Defendant 3’s employee prepared the application for the loss re-delivery as of February 6, 2003, Defendant 3’s employee in the form of Defendant 3’s application. However, Defendant 1’s photograph attached to Defendant 1, unless Defendant 1 directly applied, it is difficult to accept Defendant 2’s application because it is difficult to presume that Defendant 1’s application for the loss re-delivery as of June 16, 1998 was in the form of application for the loss re-delivery as of June 16, 198, the party who applied for the loss re-delivery as of June 2, 198, was not unrelated to Defendant 2. However, Defendant 1’s motion for the above loss re-delivery as of May 25, 2001. Thus, it is difficult to see that the above application was prepared in the form of Defendant 3’s name.

(2) Whether the driver's license of May 25, 2001 was issued in an unlawful manner by Defendant 2

(A) Basic facts

According to each evidence of the submission by the prosecutor, the following facts are recognized:

① Defendant 1 was arrested on June 15, 2005 on the charge of violation of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection, etc. of Victims (Special Robbery, Rape, etc.) while operating the Central Tracklass, etc. on August 17, 1992, on the charge of failing to pay attention and making several recommendations. At the time of arrest, Defendant 1 was arrested on the charge of violating the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection, etc. of Victims (Special Robbery, Rape, etc.). At the time of arrest, Defendant 1 possessed a driver’s license (number omitted) in the name of the Seoul

② Where a driver’s license number is reissued for reasons of loss, damage, etc., the driver’s license number is changed, and the driver’s license number is the driver’s license number reissued on May 25, 2001.

(3) On May 25, 2001, the procedure for the issuance of the driver’s license loss or re-issuance of the book issued in the book issued in the book issued in order to the effect that the applicant himself/herself applies, and if the applicant’s agent applies, the re-issuance of the receipt date is made if he/she submits his/her identification card. The employee in charge of receipt shall confirm whether the personal information stated in the application and his/her photograph, personal information stated in his/her identification card, and photograph are consistent with the applicant’s identification card, affix his/her signature in the form for confirmation and confirmation of his/her identification card, copy of the submitted identification card, and attach the contents of the application to the application. The person in charge of manufacturing the license shall produce the

④ On May 25, 2001, Defendant 2 prepared and submitted a written application for the issuance of the loss to which Defendant 3’s personal information was recorded as Defendant 3’s agent at the examination site for the issuance of the loss. Upon the above written application for the issuance of the loss, the above driver’s license was issued, and Defendant 1’s photograph is attached to the written application for the issuance of the loss, which is kept at the examination site for the issuance of the loss.

⑤ According to Defendant 2’s explanation, the head of the civil petition office confirmed whether Defendant 3, who had worked with the National Police Agency Information 1 at the time, was delegated by telephone to Defendant 3, and Defendant 2 stated the above application as “the National Police Agency Information 1 Department” on Nonindicted 26’s request.

6) The original copy of the application for the loss re-delivery is signed by Nonindicted 28, who was an employee in charge of receipt at the time of receipt, and the copy of Defendant 3’s identification card is not attached, and only a copy of Defendant 2’s identification card is attached. The upper right side of the application is written by Nonindicted 28 in writing as “Nonindicted 26 of the Civil Petition Office.”

7) At the time of the license examination site, video photographs created for manufacturing the license were stored in the computer server, and were sent en bloc to the computer server of the National Police Agency following the date, but the video photographs used by Defendant 3 for issuing the driver’s license on May 25, 2001 were not sent to the computer server of the National Police Agency.

(b) the sales board;

① Whether Defendant 2 presented Defendant 3’s driver’s license at the time of filing an application for reissuance on May 25, 2001

In receipt of the above re-issuance application, Nonindicted 28 stated that Nonindicted 26 entered it in the upper part of the application form “Nonindicted 26 of the Civil Petition Office” in the direction of receipt even though there is no identification card. As above, it is extremely exceptional that Nonindicted 28, upon receipt of the above re-issuance application, stated that Nonindicted 26, entered it in the upper part of the application form “Nonindicted 26 of the Civil Petition Office,” and that it is reasonable to deem that Nonindicted 28’s above statement is sufficiently acceptable in order to prepare for a case where his liability will be at issue after performing his duties not ordinarily due to his commercial instruction.

As to this point, Defendant 2 raised the possibility that the name of Nonindicted 26 was entered in the public service center, because the applicant was not in contact and the application was filed through Nonindicted 26. However, Defendant 2 made a statement with the assent of all related parties to the license examination site that the police officer or the Dong fee was often working on the counter to request the priority treatment. However, in order to directly request the person in charge of receipt, it is possible for the person in charge of receipt to clarify his status in the counter and request the person in charge of receipt, so it cannot be said that the document was opened through Nonindicted 26 in the public service center, and it is unlikely that Nonindicted 28 specified his commercial position and name in the above application.

(C) In addition, as Defendant 2 did not bring about Defendant 3’s identification card, the head of the public service center verified whether delegation was made by telephone, and made Defendant 2 enter Defendant 3’s department as “the National Police Agency Information 1 Department” in the above application. The agent also stated that issuing a driver’s license without any separate confirmation procedure is a common statement of the persons concerned in the license examination site and the inquiry inquiry about the driver’s license test management body of this court is also the same purport. If Defendant 2 presented Defendant 3’s resident registration certificate, the head of the public service center confirms whether delegation was made by telephone with the National Police Agency Information 1, or requested Defendant 2 to enter the above application as “the National Police Agency Information 1 Department.” Thus, the above statement by Nonindicted 32 and Nonindicted 26 is sufficiently acceptable.

In the application form, only a copy of Defendant 2’s identification card is attached to the application form, which is an agent, and Defendant 3’s identification card is not attached. If Defendant 2 presented all identification cards of himself and Defendant 3, it is highly probable that Defendant 3’s identification card was omitted.

As to this point, Defendant 2 asserted that it is probable that she could have removed Defendant 3’s identification card copies after the fact in order for she to lose Defendant 2 as an offender. However, as seen in the following sub-paragraph 2, Defendant 2’s photograph on the application for the delivery of loss and re-delivery, which is more important physical evidence, is unlikely to accept the above assertion as it is difficult to accept.

In full view of all the circumstances seen earlier, Defendant 2 may sufficiently recognize the fact that Defendant 3 applied for the loss or re-issuance of the said driver’s license without having an identification card of Defendant 3.

② The subject who attached Defendant 1’s photograph to the above re-issuance application

As seen earlier, as in the original copy of the written application for the delivery of the loss as of June 16, 1998, Defendant 1’s photograph was attached to the original copy at a fixed time, and the part of the application is removed from a clean cover of pictures without any consent of the damaged country, and the other photograph attached thereto cannot be found at all. Thus, it seems that the group could have removed Defendant 2 from the above written application for the delivery of the loss and attaching Defendant 1’s photograph to Defendant 2 for leaving Defendant 2 as the offender.

(B) When Defendant 2 attached a photograph, Defendant 2’s statement that Nonindicted 32 in the license examination site, who was aware of only Defendant 2’s face and did not have any kind of relationship, ordered Defendant 2 to have his subordinate staff and process them by attaching a photograph at the time of the completion of the application, is difficult to obtain.

According to the ordinary driver's license re-issuance procedure, it seems that the applicant submits an application to complete the application, or prepares an application instead of the person with the same fees or the police officer's request, and it can be seen that the comparison with the identification card is made. However, prior to the completion of the application by Defendant 2, it is difficult for Defendant 2 to accept Defendant 2's statement that Nonindicted 26 confirmed the delegation of the application to Defendant 3.

C) Nonindicted 32 and Nonindicted 26 made a statement that the application was completed at the time when Defendant 2 first appeared to be Defendant 2 (in particular, Nonindicted 32, who was aware of Defendant 3’s face at the time, testified that he was a person who was aware of his photographed and was aware of the fact that he was aware of his photographed), and Nonindicted 35 and Nonindicted 28 stated the column for confirmation of status increase in the part recorded in the receipt staff in charge of the above application, and the column for confirmation of status increase in Nonindicted 35, Nonindicted 28, Nonindicted 32, and Nonindicted 26 appears to have obtained at least the above application’s license. However, it is difficult to obtain a driver’s license printed by Defendant 1, despite the fact that Defendant 2 was issued a printed driver’s license.

In full view of the above circumstances, Defendant 2’s submission of the instant application with Defendant 1’s photograph attached thereto, and then Defendant 1’s photographed driver’s license can be sufficiently recognized.

③ Determination on different possibilities of Defendant 2’s assertion

The possibility of manufacturing a license by means of sash re-issuance method

Defendant 2 may obtain the same driver's license without a separate application through the method of pollution re-issuance. Thus, Defendant 2 asserted that, using the normal driver's license to be issued by Defendant 3, there is a possibility that she would have received another same driver's license only by the method of pollution re-issuance. However, even in the case of pollution re-issuance (this case is a common form used in the case of loss/de-issuance), it is difficult to accept the previous driver's license application in light of the fact inquiry reply to the driver's license management body. According to the inquiry inquiry reply to the driver's license management body, the number of the driver's license in this case is changed the last place number of the driver's license as in the case of pollution re-issuance. The number of the driver's license in this case is the same as that of the driver's license issued by Defendant 2, the details of which are transmitted to the National Police Agency at the same time as the receipt of the license in this case, there is no re-issuance by the method of pollution re-issuance.

(B) Possibility of the fabrication of evidence

Defendant 2, since October 199, when the re-issuance procedure of the driver's license was computerized, on May 25, 2001, confirmed the previous issuance ledger of the driver's license on the day of May 25, 2001, and replaced it with the video photograph. Accordingly, if Defendant 2 presented Defendant 1's photograph, it is found that the disagreement was found, and if the driver's license was issued without problem, and the video photograph used in the issuance of the driver's license on May 25, 2001 was not transmitted to the National Police Agency server, Defendant 2 could have operated the evidence by attaching Defendant 1's photograph.

On or before October 201, the party in charge of the issuance of the driver’s license at the time’s license examination site, unlike the other license examination site, stated that the issuance of the driver’s license was made by the process of comparing the identification card and application with the other license examination site. In this situation, even if Defendant 1’s photograph was presented, it appears that the issuance of the driver’s license would have been sufficiently possible. As seen earlier, the fact that the photograph of the original copy of the application for the issuance of the loss was not replaced, Nonindicted 40 et al. stated that the transmission of the video photograph was omitted or mistakenly transmitted due to the lack of the initial system after computerization, and in particular, it is difficult to view that only 253 of the video photographs created on May 25, 201, which were sent by Defendant 258, were omitted, and that it was difficult to accept the aforementioned video operation as evidence.

4. Judgment - The public offering of defendant 3

㉮ 피고인 1이, 1998. 6. 30. 피고인 2가 발급받아 준 운전면허증의 유효기간이 만료되어 신분증의 용도로 사용하기 어렵게 되어 피고인 2에게 다시 발급해 줄 것을 간청하자 피고인 2가 “이번에는 피고인 3 몰래 만들기 어려운데 피고인 3이 거절하였다, 현재 피고인 3이 재개발조합 관련된 일로 경제적으로 힘든 상황인데 2,000만 원 정도 주고 부탁하면 들어 줄지 모르겠다.”고 하기에 피고인 2에게 1,500만 원을 주었고, 그 며칠 후 피고인 2가 피고인 3의 운전면허증을 발급 받아주었다고 일관되게 진술하고 있는 점, ㉯ 앞서 본 바와 같이 그 무렵 피고인 1에게서 피고인 2에게로, 피고인 2에게서 피고인 3에게로 이어지는 금전의 이동경로, 이동시기, 그 금액 등이 모두 피고인 1의 위 진술에 대체로 부합하고, 특히 피고인 3이 2001. 7. 6. 피고인 2로부터 받은 500만 원에 관하여 피고인 2, 3이 서로 모순된 진술을 하고 있는 점, ㉰ 피고인 3의 협조 없이 피고인 2가 피고인 3의 인적사항을 파악하여 이용하기는 쉽지 않았을 것으로 보이고, 피고인 3도 2001. 5.경 피고인 2에게 주민등록증을 복사해 준 사실을 인정하고 있는 점, ㉱ 피고인 3이 2003. 2. 6. 공소외 13 감사관의 전화를 받은 후 그날 바로 서부면허시험장에서 자신의 운전면허증을 재발급받았고, 그 다음날 감사원에서 이전 면허증 분실재교부일자를 2001. 5. 25.로 정확하게 특정하여 진술한 점, ㉲ 피고인 3이 감사원 조사를 받은 직후 피고인 2와 함께 서부면허시험장을 찾아가 민원실장 공소외 25에게 위 분실재교부신청서에 붙어있는 사진의 교체를 요구하였다 거절당하자, 같은 날 저녁 공소외 25의 경찰 동기생인 공소외 18을 불러 당직근무 중인 공소외 25를 다시 찾아간 점, ㉳ 피고인 3이 이미 인사발령으로 위 서부면허시험장을 떠난 공소외 26에게까지 찾아가 위 신청서의 사진교체를 재차 요구한 점 등 앞서 든 각 증거에 의하여 인정되는 제반 정황에 비추어 보면, 피고인 2, 3이 피고인 1과 공모하여 피고인 1의 사진이 인쇄된 위 운전면허증을 발급받은 사실을 넉넉히 인정할 수 있다.

(3) Additional Judgment - The relationship between the case of February 6, 2003 and February 7, 2003 and the case of unjust issuance of driver's license on May 25, 2001

(A) The reasons why Defendant 3’s driver’s license was issued on February 6, 2003 and the reasons why the non-issuance of the driver’s license was revealed on May 25, 2001

On February 6, 2003, Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 issued a driver's license directly, and Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 found the license test site on February 7, 2003, and confirmed the application for the loss and re-delivery on May 25, 2001 and stated that there was a problem in the previous license.

On the other hand, on February 6, 2003, the head of the public service center, Nonindicted 25 and the head of the team at the above public service center, found that Defendant 2 had caused Defendant 3’s driver’s license, and that the photographs attached to the re-issuance application and the images related to Defendant 3’s license were different on May 25, 2001, and confirmed the original copy of the non-issuance application on May 25, 2001. As a result, it was confirmed that Defendant 1’s photographs are attached to the above application, and that Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 deleted the above pictures 31 after the dispute between Defendant 2 and Defendant 3. It was thought that Defendant 2 did not reverse Defendant 3’s previous application for the non-issuance on May 25, 2001, and that Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 were not issued with the re-issuance on May 27, 2003.

In addition to each of the above statements, it is difficult to confirm the video photographs of February 6, 2003 due to the following facts: (a) the application for the issuance of the driver's license of February 6, 2003 was sent by 31 and the pen organizations used for the preparation of the application were different; (b) from the pen organizations used for the preparation of the application, Defendant 3 appears to have no special reason to make a false statement; and (c) on May 25, 2001, the video photographs of May 25, 2001 were not sent to the National Police Agency, so it was difficult to confirm the problem of the issuance of the driver's license of February 25, 2001; and therefore, (d) it is thought that Defendant 3 was issued the driver's license of February 6, 2003, and it was likely that Defendant 2 and 3 might have lost the previous application for the issuance of the driver's license to the Board of Audit and Inspection on February 7, 2003.

(B) The relationship between the above situation and the non-issuance of the driver's license on May 25, 2001

The persons involved in the book licensing examination site, including Nonindicted 26, Nonindicted 25, and 31, on February 6, 2003, on the basis of the fact that the re-issuance of the license certificate was conducted on February 6, 2003, and on the basis of the matters stated in the application form for the re-delivery of the loss, where the person who made a statement of his memory is not certain reliable, and in particular, on the part where his responsibility may be at issue, the person made a statement in defensive attitude and made a statement in some contradictory or objective ways, but in the main part, it seems that the degree of doubt about the credibility of the statement is not high, because he made a statement with the assent of all, and the 31 statement statements are recognized and corrected that some of the previous statements may be made by a scambling, and there is no reason to suspect

However, in light of the above circumstances on February 6, 2003 and February 7, 2003, Defendant 2, who was involved in the illegal issuance of the driver's license on May 25, 2001, was not Defendant 2, but Defendant 3, and Defendant 3 obtained in advance a copy of the above request for delivery of the driver's license on February 6, 2003, and it was difficult for the Board of Audit and Inspection to accurately identify Defendant 2 as of May 25, 2001, on the ground that it was difficult for the Board of Audit and Inspection to obtain the above request for delivery of the driver's license on February 6, 200 to find that it was difficult for Defendant 2 to obtain the above request for delivery of the driver's license on the ground that it was difficult for the Board of Audit and Inspection to identify Defendant 2 as an offender. However, it is also difficult for Defendant 3 to obtain the above request for delivery of the driver's license on February 6, 2003.

D. Whether the Defendants committed the crime of forging an official document by forging and exercising the aforementioned request for delivery on May 25, 2001 and forging an official document, and the crime of uttering of forged official document

The prosecutor prepared and submitted an application for the loss re-delivery of driver's license attached with Defendant 2's personal information, and submitted a written application for the loss of the driver's license attached with Defendant 1's photograph to Nonindicted 32, and then requested the director of the test site to confirm the fact of delegation only by telephone without verifying the identity card of Defendant 3. Nonindicted 28 of the staff, who believed that the photograph of the above written application was Defendant 3, signed on the confirmation column for the increase of status and made it decided by Nonindicted 26 to the test site approval column, and indicted him for the crime of forging and uttering of a public document.

Defendant 2’s application for the issuance of the loss on May 25, 2001, which was prepared by Defendant 2 as Defendant 3’s representative, is merely a private document prepared in the applicant’s name. However, if the public official in charge of receipt of the application, signed the application for the issuance of the loss on his/her identification card and the application for the issuance of the loss on his/her identification card and approved it, it shall be deemed that the applicant made an application for the issuance of the loss on his/her identification with the same content as stated in the application, and if the public official confirmed that the photograph and other personal information recorded in his/her application correspond to those of his/her identification card and completed the receipt, it shall have the probative value on his/her part as stated in the application, and if the part of the application without authority changes without authority, the crime of forgery of a public document or alteration of an official

However, in the preparation of the above application for the delivery of missing materials, Defendant 2 did not directly use the name of the public official who is the title holder of the preparation, and only deceiving Defendant 1’s photograph as Defendant 3 as if Defendant 3. Even if Nonindicted 28 did not know that the above photograph was contrary to the truth, it cannot be deemed that Defendant 2 knew that he prepared an official document different from the fact as if he did not confirm and confirm his identification card and signed it with the intention of preparing it with the content as such, so long as he did not confirm and confirm the identification card, it cannot be deemed that there had been a conspiracy of

In addition, in the above loss re-delivery application, the number and validity period of the non-indicted 35 written by the public official is merely a part that the applicant should originally enter, or where the applicant loses his license number and validity term are unknown, it cannot be deemed that the public official in charge of the license examination is a substitute entry. This part of this part was normally prepared with the intention of preparing it by the non-indicted 35 of the public official, and it cannot be deemed that there was the use of Defendant 2’s name. The signature in the form of approval and the seal of Non-indicted 26 as well as the seal of Non-indicted 28 and Non-indicted 26 as public official who has the meaning of confirming the completion of the receipt due to the application for the loss re-delivery of the above contents, and it cannot be deemed that there was the use of Defendant 2’s name only as the intention of checking the application

Therefore, this part of the facts charged cannot be deemed to constitute a case where Defendant 2 forged an official document by preparing an official document, such as confirmation and confirmation column for the above status by using the act of a public official deceiving upon a false application by Defendant 2. Thus, the facts charged against the Defendants on May 25, 2001 and the facts charged on the use of forged official document premised thereon constitute a case where all of the facts charged regarding the use of the official document under Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act are not committed, and thus, the acquittal is pronounced pursuant to the former part

E. On May 25, 2001, the Defendants’ crime of forging official document under the above Article, and whether the crime of uttering of forged official document by Defendant 1’s exercise of each of the above drivers’ licenses was established

This part of the facts charged states that Defendant 2's photograph was forged with a driver's license issued under the name of the director of the Seoul Police Agency, which is an official document stating Defendant 1's personal information and Defendant 1's photograph, by deceiving the public official in charge as if Defendant 3's photograph was Defendant 1's photograph.

However, in the production of the above driver's license, Defendant 2 did not directly gather the name of the director of the Seoul Local Police Agency, who is the nominal owner, and a public official in charge, who is erroneous in the mistake by deceiving the public official in charge as if Defendant 1's photograph was Defendant 3, prepares the above driver's license in the name of the director of the Seoul Local Police Agency. Even if the public official in charge did not know that his photograph was contrary to the truth, it cannot be said that the above driver's license was made with the intention to recognize the descriptions of the driver's license and to prepare it with the same contents (see Supreme Court Decision 200Do938, Mar. 9, 200).

However, in the case where the person who prepared the private document has made a document that is different from the content of the private document, using the act of signing and sealing the content in the case where the person who affixed the private document made the document to write the document by using the misleading of the content of the private document is merely a means of document assistance and thus can constitute the crime of forging the private document (see Supreme Court Decision 70Do1759 delivered on September 29, 1970). However, in the case of the public document, it cannot be deemed that the crime of forging the private document is established in the same form.

In other words, in addition to Article 227 (Crime of Preparation of False Document) of the Criminal Act, which is a provision that punishs the fabrication of an intangible document (except for the crime of preparation of a false medical certificate under Article 233 of the Criminal Act), the Criminal Act has Article 228 of the Criminal Act, which is a provision that punishs the fabrication of an intangible document. In light of the fact that Article 227 of the Criminal Act provides that where a person who is not a public official makes a false report to a public official and causes him to enter a document other than a fact in a license, it shall be punished under Article 228 of the Criminal Act, but in other cases, by deceiving a public official who is not a public official without the intention of preparation of a false public document and using it as a false instrument, it shall be interpreted that a person who is not a public official makes a false report to a public official and makes another person enter a false document in a form that is not a fact in the form of an indirect crime (see Supreme Court Decision 70Do478, Jul. 17, 1997).

Therefore, in the case of this part of the facts charged, Defendant 2 applied for the delivery of false contents as if Defendant 1’s photograph was Defendant 3, and the public official in charge issued Defendant 3’s driver’s license with Defendant 1’s photograph stated in Defendant 1’s photograph while he believed it to be true, so it may be deemed that the crime of forging public document may not be established, but the crime of forging public document may not be established (the statute of limitations for the crime of writing in the driver’s license has already expired before the prosecution of this case for three years).

Therefore, on May 25, 2001, the defendants' charges of aiding and abetting an official document under Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act and the charges of uttering of each forged document against Defendant 1 on the premise of the above charges constitute a case where all facts charged do not constitute a crime, and thus, they are acquitted pursuant to the former part of Article 325

1. Defendant 1

Defendant 1, after having suffered a large number of victims due to large bankruptcy on 192, obtained two or more driver's licenses from Defendant 2 at his own expense, and carried them, and carried them with Defendant 3's driver's license for about 13 years, and carried them closely, and the Defendant 1 avoided the instant crimes, such as fraud and violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (recrimination) while using the provisional name of "Nonindicted 1" and "Defendant 3" during the escape life, and committed the instant crimes, such as fraud and violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (recination). Since the escape fund was the floor or the floor, the nature and circumstances of each of the instant crimes are very poor, and thus, the said Defendant cannot be severely punished.

However, the circumstances that Defendant 1 did not directly rape the victim, and even in the crime of larceny, etc., the degree of participation is not heavy compared to Co-Defendant 4, and the victims expressed their intent not to have the victim want to have the punishment, including the victim of robbery and rape, and Defendant 1 appears to have an attitude against the truth while making a confession of the entire crime. Considering the favorable circumstances, the above defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, and circumstances before and after the crime, etc., the punishment as ordered shall be determined within the scope of punishment mitigated by taking into account the various circumstances, which are the conditions for sentencing specified in the trial of this case, including the above defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, and conditions before and after the crime.

2. Defendant 2

Defendant 2, who was designated as police officer, was aware of the nature of Defendant 1 as police officer, and was issued a driver's license by unlawful means using the trust of police officers at two times or more at the license examination site, and was engaged in a bad behavior that is difficult to believe that Defendant 1 was an act of current police officers, such as aiding and abetting Defendant 1 to avoid the number of times of the investigation agency, such as aiding and abetting the police officers in their own name, etc. In the end, in collusion with Defendant 3 at the location where he would be aware of the fact he received a driver's license in connection with the investigation conducted by the Board of Audit and Inspection, and interfere with the investigation conducted by the Board of Audit and Inspection by forging official documents in collusion with Defendant 1 and interfering with the investigation conducted by the Board of Audit and Inspection, and testimony was made in order to receive the money invested by Defendant 1 at the recommendation of the Board of Audit and Inspection, and the nature and circumstances of the crime are very poor.

In addition, each of the above crimes is a serious crime that may cause damage to the trust of the majority of police officers who faithfully perform their duties with an implied leave of view in difficult circumstances as well as Defendant 2. Defendant 2, rather than Defendant 2, has made a false statement in order for police officers to sacrifice themselves, and the police officers in charge of investigation, prosecutor's office, and other police organizations that intend to make himself/herself feel as a criminal by strictly manipulating the objective evidence, and there is no doubt that there is any reflective behavior. In light of these circumstances, Defendant 2 cannot be sentenced to punishment.

However, the above defendant had no record of punishment prior to the instant case, and appears to have displayed his ability in the difficult investigative field for a long time as a police officer, and he forged an official document in the manner where he would be aware of the fact that he obtained a driver's license with Defendant 1, and used it, and there was no reason to consider the fact that he had made a false testimony in a civil lawsuit in order to conceal the relationship with Defendant 1 with the multiple times, and that there was no reason to consider in the process of the crime, etc., in favor of the above defendant, the above defendant shall be considered as favorable to the above defendant, and the punishment shall be determined as ordered by taking into comprehensive account various circumstances, such as the age, character, character, environment, and circumstances before and after the instant crime, etc., which are the conditions for sentencing specified in the instant trial.

3. Defendant 3

Defendant 3 also committed the instant crime with the intent to interfere with the investigation by the Board of Audit and Inspection. In particular, Defendant 3 may not be sentenced to a sentence on May 25, 2001, taking into account the following circumstances: (a) inasmuch as the act of providing a copy of resident registration certificate and receiving money and valuables in return was the motive for each of the instant crimes by allowing the issuance of a driver’s license on May 25, 2001; (b) Defendant 3 asserted that it is irrelevant to the issuance of a driver’s license on May 25, 2001; and (c) did not show an attitude contrary to the truth, such as the reversal of statements, in order to ease his criminal liability.

However, the above defendant did not have any punishment prior to the instant case, and seems to have lived in a relatively sincere manner as a police officer, and the defendant 2 and the defendant 1's request for the issuance of a driver's license was not spreaded at the time when he experienced economic difficulties, and there are circumstances that may be considered in the course of committing the instant crime, and the degree of his participation seems to be relatively minor compared to the defendant 2 and the defendant 1, and there are no other materials that can be deemed to have participated in the illegal issuance of a driver's license around 198, taking into account the circumstances, such as the above defendant's age, character, environment, circumstances before and after the instant crime, etc., and taking into account various circumstances, which are the conditions for sentencing as shown in the instant trial, such as the above defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, and circumstances before and after the instant crime, the punishment shall be determined as per the order.

Judges Yellow-ju (Presiding Judge)