A case where there is an error of law that pronounced confiscation for the whole destruction of the altered part only;

The seized officer identification card is an unlawful act that affected the judgment, since the defendant acquired and altered the lost person's photograph by attaching his/her photograph, and is owned by the lost person who is not the defendant, only the photograph should have been discarded.

Article 48 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Defendant

Jinju Branch of Busan District Court (75 Gohap52)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

The sixty days of detention days before the sentence of the original judgment shall be included in the original sentence.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date of the final judgment.

An altered part of an officer identification card (Evidence 1) that has been seized shall be discarded.

One seized wall (Evidence 5) shall be returned to the Nonindicted Party to the victim.

The main point of the defendant's grounds for appeal is that the sentencing made by the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.

Considering the following circumstances such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, home environment, and history and result of the instant crime, the lower court’s sentencing is deemed unreasonable, and thus, the appeal is justifiable.

In addition, the court below's decision that one copy (No. 1) of the officer identification card confiscated ex officio is not the ownership of the non-indicted who is not the defendant, but should have discarded only the altered part (the photograph). The court below erred by misapprehending the law by forfeiture from the defendant, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, there is a ground for ex officio reversal.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is decided as follows after pleading.

Criminal facts

Defendant,

1. As of early December 18, 1974, at around 18:00, the victim, the non-indicted 500 won in cash owned by the victim, the non-indicted satisfy, who had been lost at the scene, and embling the amount equivalent to KRW 100 in the market price, by acquiring a dembl, a dembl, and a copy of an officer identification card, etc.

2. For the purpose of uttering, at around 20:0 on May 18, 1975, at the small room located in the 6th half of the above 1st half of the above 1st half of the 1st half of the 1st century, the photograph of the non-indicted who was attached to the right upper corner of the officer identification card issued by the Minister of National Defense on May 1, 1973 and altered one copy of the 1st of the 1st official identification card, a public document, together with the photograph of the defendant.

Summary of Evidence

The facts in the judgment above are examined:

1. Statement that conforms to the facts stated in the trial court of the defendant;

1. Statement of the defendant consistent with the facts in the trial records of the court below;

1. Statement that corresponds to the facts indicated in the protocol of examination of the accused prepared by the public prosecutor;

1. In full view of one copy of an officer identification card seized (No. 1) and one of the existing parts, etc. of an Advanced EM, the evidence is sufficient;

Legal Application

Article 360 (1) of the Criminal Act provides that the so-called "the defendant's decision" in Article 1 of the Criminal Act provides that the so-called "the defendant shall be sentenced to imprisonment" in Article 360 (1) of the Criminal Act; Article 2 of the decision provides that "the defendant shall be sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of embezzlement of lost articles, which falls under Article 225 of the same Act; since the above several crimes are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the same Act, Article 38 (1) 2 and Article 50 of the same Act provides that "the punishment for alteration of public documents, for which punishment is heavy pursuant to Article 38 (1) 2 and Article 50 of the same Act provides that "the defendant shall be sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for not more than eight months within the period of punishment reduced pursuant to Article 55 (1) 3 of the same Act, and the defendant shall be sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for 60 days within the period of detention prior to the sentence, but the defendant shall suffer minor damage and shall be returned after the crime."

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges fixed authority (Presiding Judge) Park Man-ho Kim-ho