[1] Whether a document regarding a certificate of fact contains a document to prove facts in law or social life (affirmative), and whether a document prepared by using another person's name as a witness in the contract for claim constitutes a private document (affirmative)

[2] In a case where the seal of the person under whose name the document was written is omitted, whether it constitutes a private document in the crime of forging a private document (affirmative with qualification)

[1] A document concerning a certificate of fact shall be deemed to include a document concerning legal or social facts. Thus, a document prepared by using another person's name as a witness of a contract for claim constitutes a private document.

[2] Even if the seal of the person who prepared the private document is not affixed to the seal of the person who prepared the private document, if the seal has the form and appearance sufficient to believe in the document of the nominal owner with the trade name and name of the person, it may be deemed that it constitutes a private document in the crime of forging the private document

[1] Article 231 of the Criminal Act / [2] Article 231 of the Criminal Act

[2] Supreme Court Decision 88Do2209 delivered on August 8, 1989 (Gong1989, 1387)

Defendant

Defendant

Law Firm Mine Name, Attorneys Lee Jae-mun et al.

Incheon District Court Decision 99No2028 delivered on October 7, 1999

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The judgment of the court of first instance that found the defendant guilty of each of the facts charged in the judgment of the court of first instance, based on the evidence adopted by the court below, is justified, and there is no error of law in finding the facts against the rules of evidence.

The judgment of the court below that recognized a document as a private document is acceptable in this case where the document of fact-finding is prepared without permission in the name of another person as the observer of the contract for claim, since it shall be deemed that the document of fact-finding includes a document concerning the legal or social facts.

In addition, even if the seal of the person who prepared the private document was not stamped, in the case of this case with the form and appearance that can be believed in the document of the nominal owner with the trade name and name of the person in whose name the seal is written (see Supreme Court Decision 88Do2209, Aug. 8, 1989), the judgment of the court below to the same purport is proper, and there are no errors of misapprehending the legal principles concerning the forgery of the private document.

Of the grounds of appeal, the Supreme Court's precedent is not appropriate to be invoked in the instant case differently from the matter.

In addition, in this case where the defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence for eight months or two years, the reason why the amount of punishment is inappropriate is not a legitimate ground for appeal under Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

We cannot accept the arguments in the grounds of appeal.

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

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)