A public official who assists in the preparation of an official document voluntarily prepares an official document in a false manner (crime of forging an official document)

The subject of the crime of preparing false public documents is limited to a public official who has the authority to prepare the documents, and a public official engaged in the duties to assist the preparation of documents by the public official is not the subject of the crime above. Therefore, when the assistant public official completes the public document with the approval of the person who has the authority to prepare false public documents after obtaining the approval of the person who has the authority to prepare false public documents, he/she shall be the indirect principal of the crime of forging false public documents. When the document is completed at his/her discretion without obtaining such approval, the crime of forging

Articles 225 and 227 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 4293Do297 delivered on May 17, 1962, 65Do704 delivered on October 5, 1965

Defendant

Gwangju District Court Decision 80No962 delivered on February 13, 1981

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju District Court Panel Division.

We examine the Defendant’s grounds of appeal.

(1) The principal agent of the crime of preparing false public documents is limited to a public official who has the authority to prepare the documents, and a public official engaged in the duty to assist the preparation of documents is not the principal agent of the crime of forging false public documents. Thus, if a public official engaged in such assisting duty submits a false public document to the preparing authority that he/she may obtain recognition by entering the false public document and let him/her write his/her name or affix his/her name and affix his/her seal to it, it shall be an indirect offense of preparing false public documents (see Supreme Court Decision 4293No297 delivered on May 17, 1962). However, if the public official completes his/her official document by using the name or his/her official seal of the preparing authority without obtaining such approval, it may not be established, but it may not be established as an indirect offense of forging false public documents (see Supreme Court Decision 65Do704 delivered on October 5, 1965).

(2) In this case, the court below held that the defendant's act of preparing one copy of the certificate of the personal seal impression in collusion with the non-indicted who was the head of the Suwon-gun's family register book at the time is subject to the crime of preparing false public document (the purpose of the above non-indicted person's crime of preparing false public document is to be the joint principal of the crime of preparing false public document). It is clear that the above non-indicted person cannot be the principal of the crime of preparing false public document because he did not have the authority to prepare the above certificate of the personal seal impression. If the above non-indicted person is the principal of the crime of preparing false public document, the above non-indicted person's personal seal impression was made by the prosecutor without the approval of the seal impression, and the above certificate was made by the prosecutor to the effect that the above non-indicted person was completed with the rubber and his official seal impression stored in the family register book on the face of the Dong-gun-gun, without the approval of the seal impression, and if following this statement, the above certificate of the personal seal impression is not constituted an indirect crime of preparing false document.

(3) Nevertheless, the court below did not reverse the judgment below on the ground that there was an error of finding facts without any evidence or of misunderstanding facts due to incomplete hearing without examining and confirming whether the above certificate of personal seal impression was prepared with the approval of the above letter of approval.

2. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed and remanded to the Panel Division of the Gwangju District Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)