commission of the crime of uttering of forged documents

The crime of uttering of a forged, altered, or false document refers to the authenticity of the same document or the use of it as true. Therefore, the crime of uttering is not likely to be established in a case where the document is presented or delivered to an accomplice, etc. with knowledge that it was forged, altered, or falsified.

Article 229 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 72Do2639 Delivered on January 30, 1973

Defendant

Prosecutor

Seoul High Court Decision 85No2528 delivered on October 30, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The crime of uttering of forged or falsified documents refers to the authenticity of the same document or the use of it as true. Therefore, the crime of uttering is not likely to be established in a case where the document is presented or delivered to an accomplice with knowledge that it was forged, altered, or falsified.

According to the court below's lawful determination, the defendant, under the condition that he would offer a gold of KRW 1,00,000 per case from the deceased non-indicted deceased person, referring to the owner of an unauthorized building subject to removal, who actually does not reside in the processed object or the area subject to removal, and provided the non-indicted deceased person with the removal and confirmation necessary for the application for the removal of the removal subsidy, the certificate of personal seal impression, resident registration card, etc. to the non-indicted deceased person in relation to his accomplice by forging the above documents, etc., and there is no room to establish the crime of uttering, because the above documents, etc. were forged or falsely prepared.

In the instant case, if a public official prepares and issues a false public document, etc. at his request, it shall be deemed that the requester was aware of the fact that the person in need of the solicitation would exercise it by means of a genuine public document, so the publisher cannot be exempted from the liability for the crime of uttering, etc., if the requester exercised this document. However, it is obvious that the facts charged in the instant case was delivered to the above non-indicted, and it is obvious that the said non-indicted used the document, etc. which was forged or falsely prepared, and there is no discussion about the use of the document by the above non-indicted.

There is no reason to discuss.

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

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)