Whether the crime of altering the official document and uttering of the altered official document is established in case where the court attached the divorce declaration and delivered it after the copy of the confirmation of intention of divorce, and the party removed it and submitted it to the family registry office with a different statement attached thereto (negative)

In full view of Article 79(1) of the former Family Register Act (repealed by Act No. 8435, May 17, 2007) and the former Enforcement Rule of the Family Register Act (repealed by the Supreme Court Regulations No. 2119, Nov. 28, 2007), even if a book office, etc. of a family court prepared a certified copy of confirmation of intention of divorce and delivered it to both parties applying for confirmation of intention of divorce and affixed the seal thereto, it cannot be deemed that the declaration of divorce is a part of a certified copy of confirmation of intention of divorce, which is an official document. Therefore, even if a party removed a divorce declaration connected to a certified copy of confirmation of intention of divorce and submitted it to a family register along with a certified copy of confirmation of intention of divorce different from the original written confirmation of intention of divorce, it cannot be said that the certified copy of confirmation of intention of divorce, which is an official document, was altered or the modified certified certified certified copy of confirmation of intention of divorce

Articles 225 and 229 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Defendant and Prosecutor

Daegu District Court Decision 2006No1804 Decided October 19, 2006

All appeals are dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Article 79(1) of the former Family Register Act (amended by Act No. 8435, May 17, 2007) provides that "a person who intends to make a divorce by agreement shall file a report with the confirmation of the family court having jurisdiction over the legal domicile or domicile of the family court." In order to apply for confirmation of intention of divorce pursuant to the former Enforcement Rule of the Family Register Act (amended by Supreme Court Regulation No. 2119, Nov. 28, 2007), the agreement shall be accompanied by a certified copy of the family register confirmation application and three copies of the confirmation statement shall be submitted to the family court without delay after confirming intention of divorce from both parties who desire to divorce, and the family court shall prepare a certified copy of the confirmation document of intention of divorce and the confirmation document shall be accompanied by a certified copy of the confirmation document of intention of divorce, the date of confirmation, and the confirmation document shall be accompanied by a certified copy of the confirmation document of intention of divorce and the confirmation document of intention of divorce between both parties and the original confirmation document shall not be considered as part of divorce.

In the same purport, the judgment of the court below that the defendant's act submitted to the family registry office along with a certified copy of confirmation and a modified divorce report is not an alteration of official document or an alteration of official document, is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to alteration of official document, contrary to the prosecutor's grounds of appeal.

2. The Defendant’s ground of appeal is merely an error in the selection of evidence and fact-finding, which belong to the lower court’s exclusive jurisdiction, and thus does not constitute a legitimate ground of appeal.

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

Justices Kim Nung-hwan (Presiding Justice)