Whether an act of simply copying the forged original document with an electronic reproduction machine and making a copy thereof constitutes an act of forging documents.

A copy of a document reproduced with an electronic reproduction also constitutes a document which is the object of the crime of forging documents and the crime of uttering, and an act of simply reproducing the forged original document with an electronic reproduction and making it a copy thereof constitutes an act of creating a separate document copy which is likely to impair public confidence.

Article 231 of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 5057 of Dec. 29, 1995)

Supreme Court en banc Decision 87Do506 Decided September 12, 1989 (Gong1989, 1418), Supreme Court Decision 92Do226 Decided November 27, 1992 (Gong1993Sang, 316), Supreme Court Decision 94Do4 Decided March 22, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 1376), Supreme Court Decision 95Do2389 Decided December 26, 1995 (Gong196Sang, 651)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Han-soo

Gwangju District Court Decision 94No1068 delivered on February 16, 1996

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the first ground for appeal

The summary of the charges of forging private documents and uttering of private documents against the defendant is as follows: while the defendant forged the sale certificate of this case, which is a private document, but did not exercise it on or around 1982, the defendant forged one copy of the sale certificate, which is a private document, by copying it with the electronic copy, and then submitted it to the court and exercised it. The copy of the document reproduced with the electronic copy is also an object of the crime of forging documents and uttering of the document (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 87Do506, Sept. 12, 1989). In this case, the act of simply copying the original document with the electronic copy with the electronic copy, which is an act of creating a separate document which might impair the public trust, and thus, it cannot be viewed that the act of forging documents constitutes an act of forging documents. Thus, there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the violation of the statute of limitations as to the facts charged and the violation of the rules of evidence, etc.

2. On the second ground for appeal

Examining the relevant evidence in comparison with the records, the defendant is aware that his own possession of the land in this case did not occur due to the completion of the prescription period, and he is aware that his possession did not occur due to the completion of the acquisition by prescription, and the defendant, with the intention of deceiving the court as if his possession was autonomous possession and obtaining a favorable judgment ordering the implementation of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer due to the completion of prescription, and can sufficiently be recognized as evidence that he forged the sale certificate in this case and submitted it to the court as evidence. As such, the judgment below which held the defendant as the crime of attempted fraud by litigation fraud is just, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence and misapprehension of the legal principles as to the establishment of fraud by litigation fraud

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

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)