[1] Whether an act of “whether a document is the original” in an important transaction constitutes a crime of forging a private document and an act of using a copy of a reproduced document as if it were the original without any other manipulation for the purpose of utteringing a copy of the document as if it were the authentic original (affirmative)

[2] The case holding that in a case where the defendant, an attorney-at-law, accepted a large number of criminal complaints filed in violation of the Copyright Act, and submitted 20 or 10 copies of a complaint individually to an investigator, attached with the authentic transit certificate issued by the associate attorney-at-law association only to one of the delegation letter of complaint, attached with the authentic transit certificate issued by the associate attorney-at-law association, and copied 20 or 10 copies of the delegation letter of complaint, and received them together with the letter of complaint along with a copy of the delegation letter of complaint, the defendant's act constitutes the crime of forging private documents and uttering of the same document

[1] Since the protected legal interest in the crime of forging and uttering of documents is the public credibility in the document, the act of reproducing the original document to be used as if it were the original document and then a copy of the reproduced document is the crime of forging and uttering of private documents, since "whether the document is the original document" is an important transaction without any other manipulation for the purpose of exercising the copy of the document as if it were the authentic copy.

In addition, the crime of forging a private document shall be established when the form and appearance to the extent that the nominal owner can regard it as a document prepared by the original owner is sufficient to mislead the general public in the real private document prepared by the original owner.

[2] In a case where an attorney-at-law submitted 20 or 10 copies or ten copies of a complaint to file a criminal complaint against a large number of violations of the Copyright Act, and submitted them to an investigator individually, attached the authentic transit certificates issued by the affiliated attorney-at-law association only to each of the copies, copied 20 or 10 copies of the authentic transit certificates issued by the affiliated attorney-at-law association with each of the copies, and received them together with the letter of accusation, the case holding that since a via certificate issued by the attorney-at-law association is a document confirming that an attorney-at-law’s appointment certificate was passed through the attorney association and paid a prescribed transit fee, it cannot be substituted with the original document, and it cannot be substituted with the original document, and a via the attorney-at-law association’s name copied with each of the copies of the delegation forms of complaint with each of the delegation forms, and it is hard for the general public to find out the form and appearance of the original document as the form of the defendant’s act of uttering of the document is not the original document.

[1] Articles 231 and 234 of the Criminal Act / [2] Articles 231 and 234 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Defendant

Law Firm SSS Law Firm, Attorney Ansan-sik

Suwon District Court Decision 2015No2954 decided January 15, 2016

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles as to the crime of forging documents

A. The protected legal interest in the crime of forging documents and uttering of a document is the public credibility in the document, and thus, “whether the document is the original” is an act of reproducing the original document to be copied without any other manipulation for the purpose of exercising the copy of the document as if it were the authentic copy in an important transaction and using the copy of the document so reproduced as if it were the original copy constitutes the crime of forging private documents and the crime of uttering thereof.

In addition, the crime of forging a private document shall be established when the form and appearance to the extent that the nominal owner can regard it in writing, which is sufficient to mislead the general public into the real private document prepared by the nominal owner.

B. Examining the facts and records acknowledged by the court below in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the entries and shapes of the certificate under the name of the Seoul Local Bar Association, which is accompanied by or copied together with the delegation delegation form or the complaint delegation form, the certificate issued by the Seoul Local Bar Association, etc. is a document confirming that an attorney-at-law’s certificate attached to the certificate was paid a prescribed transit membership fee. Thus, when submitting it to the court, investigation agencies, or public agencies, it shall be submitted to the original, and the copy shall not be substituted with the original. However, it is sufficient to view that the defendant submitted 20 or 10 copies or 10 copies of the certificate of genuine transit issued by the Seoul Local Bar Association (number 1 omitted and 2 omitted) together with each of the delegation forms of the complaint to file a criminal complaint against the violation of the Copyright Act by the client, while submitting 30 persons who are the accused of the complaint to individually file a criminal complaint with the investigator form, it is sufficient that the defendant submitted 20 copies or 10 copies of the certificate of the complaint to the Seoul Local Bar Association, together with each of the complaint form.

Furthermore, the transit certificates in the name of the Seoul Bar Association, which are reproduced together with each of the instant accusation delegation forms, are reproduced in the form in which the original document is to be prepared as it is, and all documents are to be prepared. In order to observe this carefully, it is difficult to find out that it is not the original but the duplicate. Therefore, it is deemed that the general public has the form and appearance sufficient to write it into the real private document of the nominal owner.

Therefore, while the reasoning of the judgment of the court below is somewhat inappropriate, it is just to reverse the judgment of the court of first instance that acquitted the defendant on the ground that the changed facts charged in this case are all recognized, and to have rendered a conviction. In so doing, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the aiding and

2. As to the remaining grounds of appeal

In addition, the grounds of appeal by the defendant do not constitute legitimate grounds of appeal under Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act, or it is difficult to view that it constitutes illegal grounds affecting the conclusion of the judgment below

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kwon Soon-il (Presiding Justice)