The date, time, place, and method of the facts charged to be stated in the indictment

Even if the bill of indictment does not specify the date, time, place, method, etc. of the facts charged, if the overall context stated in the bill of indictment can be inferred, it can be said that the facts charged are specified as sufficient to obtain substantive judgment.

Article 254 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 65Do852 delivered on December 21, 1965 delivered on October 19, 1971

Defendant 1 and four others

Prosecutor

Seoul Criminal Court of the first instance (74 high-class28, 74 high-class 1638)

The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant 1, the part against the defendant 2, and the part against the defendant 3 shall be reversed.

Defendant 1, 2, and 3 shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Of the detention days prior to the pronouncement of the judgment of the court below, 180 days for Defendant 1 and 2, and 140 days for Defendant 3 shall be included in the original sentence against the Defendants.

압수된 위조경찰관 신분증 1매(증 제1호), 동 신분증용 찝게 1개(증 제2호)와 경찰관수첩피 1개(증 제3호)를 피고인 1로부터, 동 위조수사관 신분증 1매(증 제8호), 동 신분증용 찝게 1개(증 제9호)를 피고인 2로부터 각 몰수한다.

In the case of Defendant 1’s uttering of forged official documents as stated in the first-1 of the judgment on the facts charged, the acquittal is not guilty.

The prosecutor's appeal against the defendant 4 and the appeal against the defendant 5 and 4 are dismissed, respectively.

The 110 days out of the number of days of confinement before the pronouncement of this judgment shall be included in the principal sentence of the judgment against Defendant 5.

1. The summary of defendant 1's appeal (No. 1) is as follows: (a) the facts charged under Article 1-1 and Article 1-1 of the judgment on the case of the prosecutor's defense counsel are as follows; (b) the facts charged against the defendant are as follows; (c) the defendant requested the non-indicted 1 to forge his identification card for the purpose of uttering; and (d) one photograph is issued to the defendant on September 1973; and (e) the defendant was issued with a certificate of forgery of the issuance of a public official who is called "the National Security Investigation Guidance and the Assistant Non-indicted 2" to the same person on October 5, 197; and (e) the court below's decision that the defendant was not guilty because it did not contain a conclusion that the defendant was forged at a specific time or at a specific place, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the facts charged under Article 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act, even if it did not contain any error in the indictment or omission of the indictment.

2. The summary of the grounds of appeal (No. 1) by Defendant 2 was asked by Nonindicted 6 (the trial was divided despite the co-defendant of the court below) to find the defendant as a security headquarters door, and the court below did not have any doubt as to whether the defendant was employed as a assistant through Nonindicted 7 introduced by that person. The defendant was completely aware of the crime of this case’s public document aiding and abetting, and the defendant was not a public official, and in particular, he got money from the victim Nonindicted 8 by misrepresenting himself as a public official, and in particular, from November 29, 1973 to December 3, 193, the court below erred in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the defendant’s false testimony or conspiracy of a public official, and thus, it did not affect the conclusion of the judgment of the court below as it did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the confession of the defendant’s official document and the confession of the defendant as it did not have any influence on each investigation agency’s 200,000 won or less of the name of male and female.

3. The summary of the grounds for appeal by the defendant 5 and his defense counsel (No. 1) is only the case in which the defendant introduced the non-indicted 9, the printing business operator upon the request of the non-indicted 7, and there was no participation at all in the crime under this case's official document. The defendant was a director on November 29, 1973, and the non-indicted 10, who was seized and only one male Rosch Rexroth (No. 10) was properly purchased at the visibility operated by the non-indicted 11 on November 29, 1973. Thus, the court below found that the defendant 2, the non-indicted 6 and the non-indicted 7 conspired with the non-indicted 7 on November 29, 1973, and there was no error of law by misunderstanding the facts against the defendant's official document and misunderstanding the facts against each investigation agency (No. 2,00,000 cashier's cashier's checks and 1).

4. The summary of the grounds for appeal by the defendant 3 and his defense counsel (No. 1) is not only the fact that the defendant was not in accordance with Nonindicted 12, 13, 14, and 15 several times, and there is no other way to borrow the same money as the facts charged, the court below, despite the fact that the defendant denied the facts charged, believed the defendant to be held liable to the defendant, to have appraisal, or to have different interests, and found the defendant guilty of the facts charged, and there is an error of law by mistake of facts affecting the conclusion of the judgment, and (No. 2) the judgment of the court below against the defendant is unfair because the amount of the sentence imposed by the court below is too excessive.

5. The first summary of the grounds for appeal by the defense counsel of Defendant 4 was that the defendant was at the incumbent police officer at the time of the crime in this case and was working in the situation room, and thus it was impossible to block the crime, but the court below found the defendant guilty. Thus, the court below erred by mistake of facts affecting the conclusion of the judgment, and the judgment of the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.

6. The gist of the grounds for appeal against Defendant 4 by the prosecutor is that the determination of the sentence imposed by the court below against the defendant is too unfasible and unfair.

First of all, Defendant 1’s reasons for appeal (No. 1) (B) is examined. The Prosecutor’s charge is, in principle, stated the subject of the crime, date, place, and method of the crime (see Article 254(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act). However, even if the public prosecution was instituted without specifying the date, time, place, and method thereof, it can be inferred in light of the overall context indicated in the indictment, it can be said that the facts of the crime were sufficiently specified in the indictment. In this case, it can be said that Defendant 1 was the subject of the crime, and the overall context of the indictment is not consistent with the above facts that Defendant’s prosecution was made for the purpose of uttering. It is clear that Defendant 2 was not guilty of the charge of the crime, which is a public official of this case, on the 7th anniversary of the fact that it was forged or falsified by 30th day before the enforcement of the indictment. Thus, it cannot be said that the Defendant’s indictment and the indictment were not lawfully made for the reason that it was forged or falsified.

Next, in light of the records, the first ground for appeal by Defendant 1, Nos. 3, 2, 5, and 3 is examined. In light of the evidence duly admitted by the court below after examining the evidence and each statement at the trial of the said Defendants, each of the facts alleged by the court below against Defendant 1 and 2 can be sufficiently recognized (However, the fact that Defendant 1 and the victim 1 jointly with the non-indicted 6 did not submit a notice of 50,000 won from the victim 16, and that the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the admission of each official document against the defendant 1 and 2, the name of official qualification and public conflict, and each of the facts alleged by the defendant 50,000 won against the defendant 1 and the defendant 3, the defendant's defense counsel did not appear to have any other grounds for appeal as alleged in the ground for appeal by the court below, or the remaining grounds for appeal by the defendant 1 and the defendant's defense counsel did not have any other grounds for appeal.

The following reasons for appeal by Defendant 1 are examined: (a) Nos. 4, 2, 5, and 3 of the grounds for appeal by Defendant 1; and (b) the reasons for appeal by the Prosecutor against Defendant 4; (c) the motive, means, result, damage level; (d) the age, character and conduct of the Defendants; (e) the environment and criminal records of the Defendants; and (e) circumstances that are the conditions for the punishment lawfully investigated by the lower court, such as circumstances after the crime, are examined in detail; (b) the sentencing of the sentence imposed by the lower court against Defendant 5 and the Prosecutor is inappropriate, because it is too heavy or too excessive, and thus, the appeal by the lower court against Defendant 5 and the Prosecutor against Defendant 4 is groundless. However, since the determination of the sentence imposed by the lower court against Defendant 1, 2, and Defendant 3 is considered unreasonable, the appeal by the said Defendants on the grounds of unfair sentencing should not be reversed.

Therefore, pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, each appeal filed by Defendants 5 and 4 and the prosecutor against Defendant 4 shall be dismissed. Pursuant to Article 57(1) of the Criminal Act, 110 days out of the number of days of confinement before the pronouncement of the judgment shall be included in the original sentence of the judgment against Defendant 5, and Articles 364(6), 361-5 subparag. 1, 361-5 subparag. 1, 14, and 15 of the Criminal Procedure Act shall be reversed among the judgment of the court below, and each of the convictions of Defendant 1 and 3 among the judgment below and each of Defendant 2 shall be ruled again by each party member.

(Proportion of Crime)

Criminal facts and summary of evidence

Defendant 1 and Defendant 2: Each criminal fact committed against Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 in violation of the Act on the Forgery of Official Document, Official Qualification and Punishment of Violences, etc. (a crime committed against Defendant 3) and the summary of evidence on the charge of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. (a crime of conflict) against Defendant 3 are stated as follows: Defendant 1's criminal fact (a crime No. 1-1 at the market) stated as follows: "Defendant 1 shall carry a false police officer's identification card on September 2, 1973 and shall take money and valuables for the purpose of using it: 6 at around 10,00,00,000,000,000,000,000: 1:3:0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00,000: 1:3:0,0,0,0

(Application of Acts and subordinate statutes)

Article 225 of the Criminal Act; Article 1-2 of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc.; Article 1-2 of the Act on the Punishment of Public Officials; Article 225, Article 30 of the same Act; Article 2-2 (1), Article 2-2-3 (1), Article 2-4 of the Act on the Punishment of Public Officials; Article 118, Article 30 of the same Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc.; Article 2-1 of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc.; Article 2-1 of the Act on the Punishment of Public Officials; Article 8-2 of the same Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc.; Articles 2-1 of the Act on the Punishment of Public Officials; Articles 2-1 of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc.; Articles 1-2 through 3 of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc.; Articles 8-2 of the same Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc.; Articles 2-1 through 3 of the same Act on the punishment of each of the Defendants.

(Not Guilty)

The summary of the charge of exercising forged official document against Defendant 1 is the same as already stated in the judgment of the grounds for appeal against the defendant. In the end, the prosecutor's main case of exercising forged official document against the defendant constitutes a case where there is no proof of the crime. Therefore, the defendant should be acquitted in accordance with the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

It is so decided as per Disposition with the above reasons.

Judge Lee Ho-ho (Presiding Judge)