Whether the crime of forging a seal is established in case where the seal of a third person is clearly or impliedly approved or delegated by the name at the time when the seal of the third person is discovered (negative)

Articles 24 and 239(1) of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Attorney Lee E-deok

Incheon District Court Decision 2013No504 decided July 4, 2014

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Incheon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Based on its adopted evidence, the lower court found the Defendant guilty on November 30, 2012, when preparing a loan application at the office of Nonindicted Co. 1 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co. 1”) and suggested Nonindicted 3, who only had a seal imprint similar to the seal imprint certificate without the seal imprint affixed by Nonindicted Co. 2, the holder of the loan application, guilty of the Defendant’s forgery and use of Nonindicted Co. 2’s seal imprint for the purpose of exercising the loan promptly. Furthermore, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion that it was made with Nonindicted 3’s permission, on the ground that there was no evidence to acknowledge the fact that the Defendant received the consent from Nonindicted 2, even if the Defendant was delegated by Nonindicted 3 with the authority to purchase used cars with Nonindicted Co. 2’s seal imprint affixed by Nonindicted Co. 3, even if it is difficult to view that Nonindicted 2 was authorized to create the seal imprint certificate even on the sole basis of the fact that Nonindicted Co. 3 was delegated with the authority to purchase used cars by Nonindicted Co. 3 and 2.

However, we cannot accept the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

The crime of forging a private seal under Article 239 (1) of the Criminal Code is established when the seal of a third person is forged without authority for the purpose of illegally exercising the seal against the will of the third person. Thus, if the seal of a third person is forged with the explicit or implied consent or delegation from the person under the name at the time of excluding the seal of the third person, the crime of forging

원심판결 이유와 기록에 의하면, 피고인은 공소외 3, 4, 5와 공모하여 피고인이 중고자동차 매매상사에 중개상으로 위장 취업한 다음 신용등급이 좋은 사람 명의로 대출을 신청하는 과정에서 대출신청자의 인감이 도용되었다는 등 트집을 잡아 대출신청자의 대출금 상환 채무는 면하게 하면서 중개상인 피고인에게 직접 송금되는 대출금을 횡령하기로 하는 속칭 ‘공대출’ 범행을 모의한 사실, 공소외 3은 2012. 11. 하순경 부친인 공소외 2에게 할부금융회사로부터 대출을 받아 중고자동차를 구입하겠다고 하여 승낙을 받고 공소외 2로부터 인감증명서, 운전면허증사본, 사원증사본, 통장사본, 주민등록등본, 소득자별근로소득원천징수부, 세목별 과세증명서를 교부받은 사실, 2012. 11. 30. 공소외 3은 피고인을 통해 벤츠 S500L 중고자동차를 매수하기로 하고 공소외 1 회사 직원 공소외 6에게 7,000만 원을 대출받겠다고 하면서 공소외 2 명의의 위 대출관련서류를 교부한 사실, 공소외 6은 공소외 2와 통화하여 아들인 공소외 3에게 대출관련서류를 교부한 사실이 있는지, 벤츠 차량을 구입하는 것이 맞는지를 확인하였고, 추가로 ‘건강보험자격득실확인서’를 요구하여 팩스로 직접 송부받기도 한 사실, 할부금융기관인 HK저축은행 본사 직원은 공소외 2에게 전화하여 구입차종과 차량인수여부, 할부신청금액과 개월 수 및 당일 대출약정서상의 입금계좌에 대출금을 입금하였을 경우 입금시점에서 대출금을 수령한 것으로 간주되어 채무의 효력이 발생됨을 확인하였고, 그 과정에서 공소외 2는 차량구매를 위해 선인할부를 직접 방문하여 시승도 해 보았다는 취지의 거짓진술까지 한 점, 공소외 2의 대출의사가 확인되자 공소외 1 회사는 중개상인 피고인의 계좌로 7,000만 원을 입금한 사실, 그 후 피고인과 공소외 3은 HK저축은행에 교부할 대출약정서를 작성하는 과정에서 모의한 대로 공소외 2의 인감도장을 가져오지 않았다고 하면서 공소외 6에게 부친 명의의 인감증명서상의 인영과 흡사하게 도장을 새겨 사용하여도 된다고 말하였고, 이에 공소외 6은 공소외 2의 인장 1개를 새겨 대출약정서에 날인한 후 그 인장은 휴지통에 버려 폐기한 사실을 알 수 있다.

In light of the aforementioned legal principles, in particular, Nonindicted 2 delivered all documents for the purchase and loan of used cars to Nonindicted 3, and clearly expresses his intention to receive installment financing to Nonindicted Company 1 and HK Savings Bank, the relationship between Nonindicted 2 and Nonindicted 3, the circumstance that Nonindicted 3 did not possess the seal impression of Nonindicted 2, and the content of the loan agreement consistent with the loan terms confirmed by Nonindicted 2, etc., in light of the aforementioned legal principles, it is reasonable to view that Nonindicted 2’s authority to manufacture and use the seal necessary for the preparation of the loan agreement as a comprehensive delegation to Nonindicted 3 of the authority to manufacture and use the seal necessary for the preparation of the loan agreement, when he comprehensively delegates it to Nonindicted 3. Accordingly, it is sufficient to deem that the Defendant was not a crime of forging a private person in this case where he created and used the seal of Nonindicted 2 with Nonindicted 3’s consent.

Nevertheless, solely on the grounds indicated in its holding, the lower court convicted all of the Defendant’s act of forging a private person, on the premise that such act constitutes the crime of forging a private person. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the establishment of the private person

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-deok (Presiding Justice)