The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Jeju District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Determination on the grounds of appeal on the forgery of an official document and the part on the uttering of an forged official document

A. In a case where a person of relevant legal principles prepares a document which has the form and appearance of a public official or a public office to believe that the document was prepared within the authority of a public official, the crime of forging public documents is established. However, when a person with an average level of decentralization takes full care, if the document does not have the form and appearance of a public document to the extent that it is readily recognizable that it was not prepared within the authority of a public official or a public office, the crime of forging public documents is not established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Do69, May 26, 1992). Meanwhile, in a case of document under the Criminal Act, document refers to an original document, which is an expression of the intention or concept stated on the document, or its social function, creditability, etc., and thus, it appears to constitute a forgery of a document and its content can be deemed as evidence of a material fact in social life (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do806, Jan. 26, 2006).