Whether fraud is established in a case where a person has forged a power of attorney to issue a certificate of personal seal impression under another person's name and received the certificate by submitting or exercising it to the Dong office (negative)

In order for fraud to be established, it shall cause property damage to another person by deceiving another person, acquiring property or pecuniary benefits, and the person himself/herself shall obtain pecuniary benefits. The certificate of personal seal impression is only a document that officially proves the seal impression currently used by an individual, and does not contain any matters concerning the disposal of property or property, and the legal interests that may be infringed due to unlawful acquisition of the certificate of personal seal impression are not the document itself, but only the contents that can be proved in writing. Therefore, the certificate of personal seal impression itself cannot be an object of fraud. In addition, since it cannot be said that the defendant suffered property damage to the office due to the act of receiving the certificate of personal seal impression from the Dong office, or that the defendant obtained pecuniary benefits due to the act of receiving the certificate of personal seal impression from the Dong office, if he/she forged the certificate of personal seal impression issued by another person and submitted and exercised it to

[1] Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Code

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney A

Seoul District Court Decision 200Da4311, 4351 Decided December 29, 2000

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

The ninety-five days of detention before the pronouncement of the judgment below shall be included in the above sentence.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the charge of fraud on October 14, 1995 is acquitted.

The gist of the defendant's grounds for appeal is that the sentence of the judgment below is too unreasonable, and the summary of the facts charged as to fraud on October 14, 1995 among the facts charged in this case is that "the defendant forged a letter of delegation of the certificate of personal seal impression issued in the name of non-indicted 1 on October 14, 1995, and presented it to the employee of the original Dong Office of the non-indicted 1 in the name of the non-indicted 1 in the name of the non-indicted 1 in the above employee, and that he obtained a certificate of personal seal impression issued in the name of the non-indicted 1 in the above employee, and the court below found the defendant guilty by taking account of the following evidences

However, in order to establish fraud, it should be said that the deception of others causes property damage to others by deceiving them and by deceiving them property or pecuniary gains, and that the certificate of personal seal impression is only a document that officially proves the seal impression currently being used by an individual, and does not contain any matters concerning the disposal of property or property, and the legal interests that may be infringed upon by unlawful acquisition of the certificate of personal seal impression shall not be the document itself, but only be the content that is to prove in writing. Therefore, the certificate of personal seal impression itself cannot be the object of fraud. In addition, since the defendant cannot be deemed to have suffered property damage to the office or have obtained pecuniary gains due to the act of receiving the above certificate of personal seal impression from the Dong office, this part of the facts charged shall not be deemed to be a crime, and thus, the court below found the defendant guilty and shall be sentenced not guilty, and therefore, the judgment of the court below should no longer be maintained in this regard because it did not affect the conclusion of the judgment by imposing a single punishment on the whole facts charged in this case.

Therefore, this court shall reverse the judgment of the court below ex officio pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without determining the above assertion of unfair sentencing, and render a judgment following oral arguments as follows.

The summary of the facts of the crime and its evidence recognized by this court is as follows: (a) in the original trial, the facts of the crime 2. Ga shall be deleted after obtaining a certificate of the personal seal impression from the above employee; (b) from March 7, 1999 to July 1, 200, "from July 31, 200", "from March 3, 1999 to July 31, 200"; and (c) in the summary column of the original trial, 2 of the evidence shall be cited as "the letter of complaint from September 17, 1996 (the letter of complaint from September 17, 1996)"; and (d) 1. 7. 3. 3. The prosecutor's office's statement from the above employee, and 1. 1. 1. 7. 3. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. ... ...... .......

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 347(1) of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 5057 of Dec. 29, 1995), Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 5057 of Oct. 16, 1995), Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 5057 of Oct. 16, 1995), Articles 231, 234, 356, and 355(1) of the Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 5057

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (Aggravation of Concurrent Crimes concerning Punishment and Punishment for Occupational Offense with the Gross Mutandis Punishment)

1. Calculation of the number of detention days before sentencing;

Article 57 of the Criminal Act

The acquittal portion

The summary of the charge of fraud on October 14, 1995 among the charged facts of this case is the same as the above finish. As stated in the above reversal grounds, this part of the charge constitutes a case where this part of the charge is not a crime, and thus, is not guilty pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Judges Cho Dong-dong (Presiding Judge)