Whether the “purpose of uttering” is necessary for the establishment of a crime of violating Article 5 of the Illegal Check Control Act due to forgery or alteration of a check (negative)

Article 214(1) of the Criminal Act on the Crimes of Forgery and Alteration of Securities provides that "any person who forges or alters a public bond certificate or other securities of the Republic of Korea or a foreign country for the purpose of uttering shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than ten years," while Article 5 of the Illegal Check Control Act on the Crimes of Forgery and Alteration of Check provides that "any person who forges or alters a check shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one year and by a fine not exceeding ten times the amount of the check." Article 5 of the Illegal Check Control Act provides that "The person who forges or alters a check shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one year and a fine not exceeding ten times the amount of the check." Article 5 of the Illegal Check Control Act does not require "the purpose of uttering" which is an excessive main constituent element by relaxing the requirements for the establishment of the check among securities, taking into account the strong circulation and the importance as a means

Article 5 of the Illegal Check Control Act, Article 214(1) of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Defendant and Prosecutor

Daegu District Court Decision 2007No1329 Decided November 13, 2007

Each appeal shall be dismissed.

1. As to the defendant's appeal

A. Article 214(1) of the Criminal Act on the Crimes of Forgery and Alteration of Securities provides that "any person who forges or alters a check by the Republic of Korea or a foreign government bond certificate or other securities for the purpose of uttering shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than ten years," while Article 5 of the Illegal Check Control Act on the Crimes of Forgery and Alteration of Check provides that "any person who forges or alters a check shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one year and by a fine not exceeding ten times the amount of the check." Article 5 of the Illegal Check Control Act provides that "The person who forges or alters a check shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one year and by a fine not exceeding ten times the amount of the check." Article 5 of the Illegal Check Control Act does not require "for the purpose of uttering" which is an excessive subjective constituent element by relaxing the requirements for the establishment of the check, taking into account the importance as a strong circulation and means of transaction.

Therefore, we cannot accept the Defendant’s ground of appeal disputing that there was no purpose to exercise the check at the time of forgery.

This part of the judgment below's reasoning is inappropriate, but it is correct in its conclusion that found the defendant guilty of violating the Illegal Check Control Act among the facts charged, and it cannot be said that there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of the legal principle as alleged in

B. Meanwhile, in the instant case where the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for less than 10 years, the grounds for unfair sentencing do not constitute legitimate grounds for appeal.

2. As to the prosecutor's appeal

According to the records, the court below's decision of the court of first instance which acquitted the defendant on the ground that there is no proof as to the part of the exercise of forged securities among the facts charged in this case is just and acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. Conclusion

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

Justices Kim Ji-hyung (Presiding Justice)