A person who prepares and delivers a false public document at the request of another person shall not be exempted from the liability for the crime of uttering where the document is exercised.

In a case where a public official prepares and issues a false official document at the request, it shall be deemed that the recipient was aware of the fact that it was necessary to the other party who requires it by means of a true official document, and when the recipient has exercised such false official document, the publisher may not be exempted from the responsibility for the crime of uttering of a false official document.

Article 229 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Busan District Court Decision 68No2187 delivered on February 12, 1969

The part which dismissed the prosecutor's appeal among the original judgment shall be reversed, and the case concerning this part shall be remanded to the Busan District Court Panel Division.

The prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below rejected the prosecutor's appeal by explaining that "if the court of first instance examines the evidence cited by the court of first instance based on the records, the defendant delivered four copies of the land cadastre prepared in falsity to the non-indicted as recognized in the facts of conviction at the time of the first trial, and this is issued at the request of the non-indicted, and the non-indicted who is a public official, was involved in the preparation of a false public document, and the delivery of such document to the non-indicted does not constitute the crime of uttering of a false public document, and there is no evidence to prove that the defendant had the non-indicted submitted the above false public document to the registry, without any evidence to prove that the non-indicted was guilty."

However, as long as the defendant prepares a false copy of the land cadastre at the time of the first trial upon the request of the non-indicted and delivers it to the non-indicted, the defendant is deemed to have known that the non-indicted knew that it was necessary for the non-indicted to use this false official document as a true official document. Therefore, if the non-indicted submits this false official document to the Busan District Court, the defendant cannot be deemed to have had any criminal intent for the crime of uttering, and the defendant cannot be exempted from the liability for the crime of uttering of false official document. However, as stated in its reasoning, the court below affirmed the judgment of the first instance that found the defendant not guilty and dismissed the prosecutor's appeal on the ground that the non-indicted did not have criminal intent for the crime, and the appeal on this point is with merit. Accordingly, the part that dismissed the prosecutor's appeal among the original judgment and the case is remanded to the Busan District Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Supreme Court Judge Hongnam-gu (Presiding Judge)