1. The responsibility for the crime of deceiving the victim by presenting forged securities and deceiving him/her;

2. The legal principles of the procedure for the renewal of pleading where a case is transferred from a single judge to a collegiate panel;

1. The so-called crime of uttering of forged securities is established, which presents forged securities and deceives the victim to acquire the property, and these crimes are substantive concurrent crimes in the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and are not commercial concurrent crimes.

2. Although the trial of a single judge completed the examination of evidence, if the trial was transferred to a collegiate panel at the request of a cultivation party, the court concluded the trial proceedings after the completion of examination of evidence and the facts constituting the crime and the procedure of renewal of the trial were followed by the misapprehension of the legal principles on the procedure for renewal of the trial

Articles 37, 40, 217, and 347 of the Criminal Act; Article 301 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant 1 and one other

Prosecutor, Defendant, etc.

Seoul District Criminal Court (73 High Court Decision 73Gohap18)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year and by a fine of 100,000 won and by imprisonment with prison labor for ten months.

When Defendant 1 does not pay the above fine, the said Defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for a period calculated by converting 1,000 won in money into one day.

One hundred and seventy days of detention days before the sentence of the original judgment shall be included in the above imprisonment.

To order the provisional payment of the above fine against Defendant 1.

The summary of the grounds of appeal by Defendant 1 is as follows: First, the defendant and the upper defendant prepare one promissory note with the consent of the defendant and the building business, which were known to the defendant and the building business in the manner of introduction by Nonindicted 1, in the presence of the non-indicted 2, and then issue one promissory note at the time of original adjudication by dividing the seals in the name of the non-indicted 2, which the above defendant and the defendant knew to the non-indicted 2, and then deliver them to the above defendant and then exchange them with cash at a discount from the non-indicted 3, despite the fact that the above defendants are forged with the non-indicted 2's promissory note in the name of the above defendant, the court below found the defendant guilty as to each crime of forging, uttering, and fraud as stated in the facts charged by the prosecutor, which affected the judgment, and second, since the court below's decision of conviction was erroneous in the misapprehension of the name of the non-indicted 2's name and the seal of the above defendant's non-indicted 4, despite the fact that the defendant had actually exercised his responsibility.

The summary of the grounds for appeal by Defendant 2 is as follows: First, the above defendant divided the above seal into one promissory note drawn up by the above defendant at the request of the above defendant and the non-indicted 2, and issued it as a legitimate bill, and it was exchanged with cash after inquiring the bank like the victim, and thus, the forged bill was not known and exchanged with cash, so the judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty is not responsible for the crime, and there is an error of law that affected the judgment by misconception of the fact, and second, even though the defendant had already been tried by the judge in charge of the Seoul Criminal District Court, i.e., the crime, such as the crime at the time of the original judgment, even though it was tried by the judge in charge of the Seoul Criminal Court, the judgment of the court below should be reversed because it is unlawful to punish the defendant twice. Third, the decision of the court below against the above defendant should be too unreasonable.

The gist of the grounds for appeal against the defendant by the prosecutor is that the judgment of the court below against the defendant, etc. is too heavy and unfair.

Ex officio, the court below, which is a legal representative of the above court, again accepted the case as the case of the defendant, etc., which is the first Seoul District Court 72Hun-Ma16898, and the proceedings of this case were concluded on December 28, 1972 by a single judge upon the receipt of the case as the case of the defendant, after which the proceedings of this case were conducted on December 28, 1972. It is recognized that the facts belonging to the jurisdiction of the collegiate panel falling under Article 29 (1) 3 and 4 of the Court Organization Act are facts belonging to the jurisdiction of the defendant's right after the resumption of proceedings on January 9, 1973 and again received the case at the request of the above court 73Hun-Ma18 after the commencement of proceedings according to the change in the organization of the court, and it is evident that the court below concluded criminal facts and the proceedings of this case were reached after the completion of examination of evidence and the judgment below should be reversed by misapprehending the legal principles of the procedure for renewal of pleadings under the Criminal Procedure Act. Furthermore of the Criminal Procedure Act and the defendant's of fraudulent evidence

(Criminal Facts)

On February 27, 1967, Defendant 1 was sentenced to imprisonment for one year and two months at a general law meeting of the Water Security Headquarters due to a deviation from military service and fraud, etc., and the execution of the sentence has been confirmed at that time, and the sentence has not been completed after the release on March 1, 1969; Defendant 2 was sentenced to a suspended sentence for two years at the Seoul Criminal District Court on February 28, 1972 at that time, and was sentenced to a suspended sentence for two years at that time after that sentence became final and conclusive;

1. The purpose of Defendant 1, etc. is to procure money and valuables from others by using eight copies of a summary bill sheet affixed by the name of the Dong in which Defendant 1 obtained from Nonindicted 1 and possessed by Nonindicted 2, the name of the Dong in the territory of the Seoul Bank, which was properly traded with the Young branch of the Seoul Bank, without the Dongin’s consent, and to use them for such purpose.

A. At around 15:00 on September 11, 1972, Defendant 2 used a seal of Non-Indicted 2 in the middle-gu, Seoul, Jung-gu, and around that time, in the middle-gu, Down-gu, Seoul around that time, Defendant 2 used a seal of Non-Indicted 2 in the long-distance, a sheet of the face value issued on September 20, 199.11, the date of the issuance of the said Promissory Notes, indicated the seal at KRW 300,000 on October 20, 1972, and forged a letter of promissory Notes, the securities of

B. On the 14th of that month, 6th of the 14th of the 14th of the same month, Defendant 2 provided to Nonindicted 3 for the presentation and exchange of the above forged promissory notes with the true promissory notes, and acquired them through an exchange of money of KRW 264,00 from the dong who believed it.

2. On September 14, 200, Defendant 1 traded with the above bank with the name plate of Nonindicted Party 2 obtained with the above promissory note paper from Nonindicted Party 1, using the watch sheet (26 pages) and the above seal, the issue date of which is 300,000 won per 10.25,00 won per 30,000 won per 30,000 won per 30,000 won per 30,000 won per 30,000 won per 30,000 won per 15,000,000 of the above seal, and 15,000,000 won per 15, 200,0000 won per 30,000 won per 30,000 won per 30

evidence scliffing,

1. Each statement consistent with the facts set forth in the judgment by the defendant, etc. at the trial court;

1. Each statement that partially conforms to the facts set forth in the ruling made by the witness, Nonindicted 5, and Nonindicted 6 in the trial court

1. Each statement in the protocol of the trial of the Seoul District Criminal Court 72 High Order 16898 on the defendant's case that corresponds to the facts set forth in the judgment of the defendant and the witness Nonindicted 78

1. Each protocol of suspect examination of the accused of the public prosecutor, etc., containing each statement consistent with the facts;

1. Each statement that conforms to the facts stated in the judgment in the statement of Nonindicted 7, 9, 8, 10, and 4 of the judicial police officer's handling of affairs;

1. The facts of the judgment in full view of the previous records and facts of the director general of the internal office and the director general of the internal office and the director general of the regional office of public security shall have sufficient proof.

Article 14 (1), Article 30 (1), Article 214 (1), Article 214 (1), Article 214 (1), Article 214 (1), Article 30 of the Criminal Act, Article 214 (1), Article 30 of the said Act, Article 247 (1) and Article 30 of the said Act, Article 6 of the Illegal Check Control Act, Article 2 of the said Act, Article 17 of the said Act, Article 30 of the said Act, Article 10 of the said Act shall apply to the punishment of defendants, etc.; Article 10 of the said Act shall apply to the punishment of defendants, etc.; Article 217, Article 214 (1) of the said Act; Article 10 of the said Act shall apply to the punishment of defendants, etc.; Article 7 of the said Act shall apply to the punishment of defendants, etc.; Article 37 of the said Act shall apply to the punishment of defendants, etc.; Article 10 of the said Act shall apply to the punishment of so-called imprisonment without prison penalty; Article 37 of the said Act shall apply to the punishment of the said Act.

Next, Defendant 1 agreed to work together with Nonindicted 2, and under the consent of the Dongin as agreed, prepared and used each bill, check, etc. of this case, and as to the assertion that Nonindicted 4 was used by Defendant 4 on the ground that it was used by Defendant 1, a copy of the summary trial report sent by the Seoul Central Police Station for the fact-finding of party members and the request for delivery of the case, the defendant was arrested as a person who committed fraud and the execution of the sentence was finalized at the time of penal detention on the ground of the same criminal facts as stated in Article 1 subparag. 3 of the Minor Offenses Punishment Act, and since part of the testimony of Nonindicted 5 and 6 was not trusted, the above argument is without merit. Accordingly, in light of the argument that Defendant 2 violated the principle of prohibition against double Jeopardy against the same criminal facts, the above argument is without merit, and therefore, according to a copy of the summary trial report sent by the Seoul Central Police Station for the fact-finding of the case, the defendant was arrested as a person who committed fraud and the execution of the sentence was completed at the same time as the criminal facts.

It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Hong-san (Presiding Judge) Constitution of the Republic of Korea