Whether it constitutes a forgery of an official document if the official document is forged if the official document was issued by the clerk, who received a written confirmation of the source of exemption from active duty due to the household affairs of false contents, and submitted it to the Myeon Chairperson for approval.

In a case where the defendant, who is the reporter in charge of military affairs, received a false statement of asset verification to be attached to the active duty exemption center due to the household affairs of another person prepared by him, and submitted it to the head of the Myeon, and obtained approval, and completed the preparation of the protocol with the official seal and private seal affixed on the end of the confirmation protocol, the defendant completed the preparation with the approval of the head of the face, who is the person who prepared the confirmation protocol, in handling the administrative affairs as the assistant agency of the Myeon, the defendant completed the preparation with the approval of the head of the face, who is the person who prepared the confirmation protocol, and therefore, the defendant

Article 225 of the Criminal Act, Article 226 of the Criminal Act, Article 229 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Gwangju High Court Decision 63No20 delivered on August 1, 1963

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

For the defendant not guilty on the charge of forging an official document

Acquittal on the defendant's duty abandonment (preliminary claim)

The facts charged in the indictment are as follows: (a) the Defendant was appointed through the entrustment of military affairs at the Office of De facto Office-gun from January 5, 1959 to the person in charge of military affairs; and (b) the person was from July 1961 to July 1, 1961, who was in charge of military affairs; and (c) the reason why Nonparty 2 was unable to maintain his family’s livelihood at the Army from Non-Party 1 to Non-Party 2, who was in the active service at the Army at the time of his own seat; and (d) the reason why he was asked to request the confirmation of his property to be the price for Nonparty 2 to be attached to Non-Party 3’s mother at the Dong Office of 8.26 to verify the property to be attached to Non-Party 2 in the name of Non-Party 3 in the name of Non-Party 1 in the name of Non-Party 1 in the above 5-year Office, and the Defendant was not aware that he was exempt from his official seal for the above 9-year 15-year 10.

However, considering the contents of Nos. 2 (A. 2) cited as evidence by the judgment below and the statement of the defendant and the witness in the first and second trial records, the part of the confirmation protocol of sources of exemption from active duty due to the above domestic affairs that the defendant conspired with the defendant and the non-party 5 in collusion with the non-party 4 in the court below's judgment is prepared as a clerk's qualification, which is the non-party 4 in charge of finance, and at the end, the part of "the non-party 5", which is the non-party 4 in charge of military affairs affairs affairs, was prepared as a clerk's qualification. The above confirmation protocol prepared by the defendant in charge of the non-party 4 in the name of the non-party 3 was received from that person, and submitted it to the non-party 5 in package with the documents related to exemption from active duty service submitted in the name of the non-party 3, and if it is sufficient to recognize that the defendant completed the confirmation protocol with his official seal and the private person affixed the above confirmation protocol, the non-party 5's name cannot be viewed as evidence.

On August 26, 1961, the gist of the criminal facts stated in the next indictment is that the defendant received the support for exemption from active duty service due to the difficulty in maintaining his livelihood from Kim Seo-gun's office in the office of the YY-gun's office and confirmed his property to be attached to the same exemption source on August 26, 1961, the defendant is the same Byung-si who is the head of the Dong, and the defendant is a public official in charge of the financial affairs in the court below's order, and it is necessary to investigate his own property and farming area in detail at the domicile of Kim Seo-ok, and then at the address of his family, it is necessary to ascertain if there is no person with labor ability of 60 years or less, or if it is difficult to maintain his family's livelihood, it is necessary to examine whether he is a national who has difficulty in maintaining his livelihood or who has no fixed amount of family's livelihood, and if it is a 15th of Dong-gun's own property and 15th of Dong-gun's own property and 15th of Dong-J.

The opinion of all participating judges is consistent with this decision.

Supreme Court Judge Lee Young-sub (Presiding Judge)