(a) Whether a document in which a seal imprint or resident registration number of a title holder is omitted constitutes a private document which is the object of the crime of forging a private document;

(b) Whether the crime of forging or uttering private documents is absorption into the latter crime committed as a means of tax evasion under Article 9 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (negative);

A. Even if the seal of the person in charge of preparing private documents is not strong and the resident registration number is not written, if the person in charge of preparing private documents has the form and appearance sufficient to believe that it is a private document prepared by the person in charge of preparing it, it shall be deemed that it is the private document which is the object of the crime of forging private documents and the crime of uttering.

(b) The crime of forging or uttering private documents was committed as a means of “emulating taxes by fraud or other unlawful act” as provided in Article 9(1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, and cannot be considered to have been absorbed into the crime of tax evasion.

(b)Article 231 and Article 234 of the Criminal Code; Article 9 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act and Article 37 of the Criminal Code;

Defendant 1 and one other

Attorney Lee Jae-soo

Seoul High Court Decision 83No2200 delivered on October 14, 1988

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal by defense counsel are examined.

Even if the seal of the person in whose name the document was prepared was written and the resident registration number was not recorded, if the ordinary person has the form and appearance sufficient to believe that the document was prepared in a genuine manner by the person in whose name the document was prepared, it shall be deemed the crime of forging the private document and the private document which is the object of the crime of uttering. The crime of forging and uttering the private document was made as a means of "emulating tax by fraud or other unlawful act" as provided in Article 9 (1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, and it shall not be deemed that the crime of evading the tax under Article 9 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act is not absorption. Thus, there is no reason to discuss it.

Therefore, all appeals by the Defendants are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)