Where Party B (B) made a forgery of blank Promissory Notes’s face value, etc. with an undue supplement to Party A’s face value, etc. and then changed at will in collusion with Party A(A), the case holding that Party B’s act does not constitute forgery or alteration of securities.

In a case where Gap (A) made a forgery of a blank promissory note with the face value of Gap (A) and then Eul (B) arbitrarily changed the face value in collusion with Eul (A), the case holding that the act of Eul (B) does not constitute forgery or alteration of securities.

Article 214(1) and (2) of the Criminal Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 2005Do4764 delivered on January 26, 2006 (Gong2006Sang, 369)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Busan District Court Decision 2008No2920 Decided October 2, 2008

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In the crime of alteration of securities, the term "an alteration" means that a person, who is not authorized to the contents of securities which have been duly formed, makes a change to the extent that the identity of the securities is not undermined. Thus, even if a person had already altered the contents of a promissory note forged by another person without authority, the alteration of securities does not constitute a crime of alteration of securities. Moreover, an alteration of the face value of a forged promissory note without authority cannot be deemed a new securities forgery separate from the original forgery (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do4764, Jan. 26, 2006, etc.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant with the same purport as the defendant's act of arbitrarily changing the amount in collusion with the forged person in a promissory note which is deemed forged due to the supplement without authority is justifiable. The ground of appeal that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the Articles of Securities

The Supreme Court Decision 82Do677 delivered on June 22, 1982 delivered on the ground of appeal is related to the completion of a forged promissory note with a face value blank, and it is not appropriate to invoke a different issue from this case where the completed promissory note has been altered upon the exercise of unfair supplementary rights.

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

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)