Whether a reproduction document constitutes a document forgery under the Criminal Act

The document in the crime of forging or uttering of documents stipulated in the Criminal Act refers to the document itself, on which the intent of the preparing titleholder is indicated. Thus, even if the original is reproduced by mechanical means, the copy or copy does not constitute the document in which the document is committed, unless the copy or copy is certified (Majority Opinion).

Articles 225, 229, 231, and 234 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Attorney Gyeong-soo

Seoul High Court Decision 77No609 delivered on December 1, 1977

The original judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal by defense counsel are examined.

According to the judgment of the court below, the court below found the defendant guilty on the ground that in the case of the crime of forging or forging documents which can use a copy of a business operator's tax payment number certificate, which was charged as of October 29, 1976, and use a copy of a single issuance certificate for the assessment of the problems of the Union, the document which is the object of the crime of forging or altering documents can be recognized, etc., by the defendant's statement and prosecutor's evidence, it is common or in the case of copying photographs by mechanical means, such as the contents, writing, and shape, etc., are accurately reproduced as the original, and the contents, writing, and shape, etc., are identical to the original, and the same external appearance as that of the original, and in the case of this case, it is judged that it is reasonable to determine in writing the copy of

However, public documents and documents which are related to the crime of forging, forging, or uttering of private documents as stipulated in the Criminal Act refer to the document itself which indicates the intention of the holder of the title deed, and copies or certified copies shall not constitute documents of each of the above crimes unless the copy or certified copy is authenticated. However, the court below's decision as stated above is justified in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the crime of forging documents, etc., and therefore, the court below's decision is reversed and remanded to the court below's decision with the assent of all participating judges except for the presiding judge, public opinion, free will, free will, free will, free will, free will, free will, free will and free will, free will, free will and free will, free will, free will and free will, free will,

The dissenting opinion of the Supreme Court judges of the Supreme Court is as follows: the presiding judge of the Supreme Court, the civil flag, the nursing, the pagogy, the pagogy port, the immigration rule, the passage rule, and

In the crime of forging documents, since the benefits of the Protection Act are not the value of the document itself, but the public credibility of the document, the document protected by the provisions of the crime of forging documents shall be deemed sufficient if there is a risk that the public credibility may be infringed due to forgery or alteration of the document.In other words, even if a reproduction document is a duplicate document, if it retains the same awareness as the original document and is recognized as a means of proof and has the same social function as the original and public reputation as the original document, it shall be deemed that the forgery of the document would infringe on the public reputation, and therefore, it is reasonable to interpret that the document is the object of forgery.

In other words, even among copies, it appears clearly that the copy by the means of writing does not directly indicate the contents of the original document himself/herself, so long as the public credibility cannot exist and there is no certification from the authorized copy maker, it cannot be viewed as an object of the crime of forgery of a document. However, in the case of a document which copied the original by using a photographer or a duplicateer, etc., the content and form of the document have strong probative power to believe that there exists the original document with the same appearance as the original in the form of writing, and thus, in today's trade society, it is reasonable to judge to the purport that the preparation of such a document constitutes an act of forging a document by gathering the name of preparation, and therefore, it is reasonable to hold that the document is an act of forging a document.

The supplementary opinion with the judge of the Supreme Court is as follows.

A document is the original function of the document, which directly expresses the character of the person in charge of preparing the document, which can be recognized by the document. A copy of the document (including a copy made by the use of photograph or any other machine) is a material to confirm the existence of a document (the original) with the content that he/she has presented in the form of the document as it is, even though it is accurately displayed by machine such as a photograph or any other instrument, it is a material to confirm the existence of the document (the original). Thus, the original and copy are different in their original function. Furthermore, considering the fact that a copy made in the process of preparing the copy may be different from that of the original, it cannot be said that there is no possibility of involvement of a third party in the process of preparing the copy itself, and it cannot be said that the copy made in a mechanical method such as photograph or any other material form, and it is not sufficient to reproduce the original accurately.

Therefore, in order to see copies and originals as identical in the face of the Criminal Law, even though both have different functions in their originals, the originals are presented accurately, and they are widely used in lieu of the originals due to credit in the general society, and it cannot be clearly unreasonable to change the criminal assessment of both parties in terms of guaranteeing their social credibility. However, in our society, it is very difficult to say that the copy is the same as that of the originals and its social functions and the substance of credit rating in the general society is widely used in lieu of it, and that it is difficult to draw up a copy of the originals in the direction to prevent the use of the originals and thus, it cannot be said that it is difficult for our society to directly interpret the originals and to prevent the use of the originals and thus, it cannot be said that it is difficult to directly take measures such as inducing the use of the originals and a copy of the originals to be used in lieu of the originals and thus, it is difficult to say that it is an unlawful means to prevent the use of the originals and a copy of the originals.

In this point, our situation about the preparation and use of copies is significantly different from the circumstances of foreign countries, such as certificates of tax payment, which are attached to goods, which are written and widely used by mechanical methods, such as photographs. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is an obstacle to accepting the foreign criminal interpretation attitude of copies, as it is, in our society. Moreover, if the copy and the original are identical to those of the Criminal Act, in view of the situation where the copy and the original are easily prepared and freely prepared, there is a sufficient examination as to the matters concerning the right to prepare documents in accordance with the article on documents, and the discussion on this point is not yet deemed to be mature. (The fact that there is a prior approval by the person authorized to prepare documents should be considered to be excessive agenda, and it cannot be avoided that there is a very clear explanation by other methods).

Therefore, at the present point of time, the copy is the same as the original itself and it is not urgent to deal with it in criminal law.

Justices Kim Jong-joon (Presiding Justice) since it is impossible to sign on the part of the judge of the Supreme Court of Korea, who is a public official in charge of overseas business trip, since this part of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Korea (Presiding Justice) is a public official in charge of this part of the judgment, the public official in charge of this part of the judgment, and the public official in charge of this part of the judgment (Presiding Justice).