Defendant

Masters (prosecutions) and public trials (public trials)

Attorneys Kim Jong-won (Korean National Assembly)

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

Punishment of the crime

【Criminal Power】

On May 20, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to eight months of imprisonment for a violation of the Public Official Election Act by the Daejeon High Court on May 20, 2015 and completed the execution of the sentence in the Daejeon Prison on August 16, 2015.

【Criminal Facts】

The Defendant displayed a certified copy of the register that altered as if there was no collateral on the land and building (location omitted) owned by the Defendant’s mother Nonindicted Party 1 (hereinafter “the instant real estate”) to the victim Nonindicted 3, who read that “in the event of borrowing money from the lender, it is impossible to repay the borrowed money, it would create a collateral security on the instant real estate.” The Defendant was willing to borrow the borrowed money from the victim.

1. Alteration of an official document;

On August 2015, the Defendant deleted and copied the part of the date of issuance of the certified copy of the register on the instant real estate, in which the ownership transfer provisional registration (receiving on February 6, 2013) and the establishment registration (receiving on January 23, 2013) was not completed, which was printed out via the Internet around January 2013.

Accordingly, for the purpose of uttering, the Defendant modified a copy of the register of the instant real estate issued by the Cheongyang Branch of the Daejeon District Court as an official document.

2. Exercising altered official documents;

Around August 10, 2016, at the Defendant’s container office located in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gu ( Address 2 omitted), the Defendant displayed a copy of the copy of the register of the instant real estate kept by alteration as prescribed in paragraph (1) with respect to the victim who was aware of such alteration, and held the instant real estate by stating that “If he/she fails to repay the money, he/she would create a right to collateral security on the instant real estate, he/she would create a right to collateral security on the instant real estate.”

3. Fraud;

Around August 10, 2016, the Defendant, at the Defendant’s container office located in Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-do ( Address 2 omitted), stated a copy of the copy of the register of the instant real estate kept by alteration as prescribed in paragraph (1) with respect to the victim who was aware of such alteration, and stated that “If he/she fails to repay money, he/she would create a right to collateral security on the instant real estate” as if there was no establishment of any security on the instant real estate at that time.

However, the facts are only limited to the obligation that the Defendant had not paid the construction cost or personnel expenses that the Defendant had existed at the time, but did not own the property of the Defendant, and the real estate in this case at the time of the above temporary closure, the ownership transfer security registration (the receipt on February 6, 2013) in which the person holding the provisional registration and the person holding the right to collateral security (the receipt on February 6, 2013) and the registration of the establishment of the neighboring mortgage (the

Nevertheless, the Defendant received KRW 30 million, around August 10, 2016, and KRW 10 million around August 26, 2016, respectively, from the victims who believe that the instant real estate has value as collateral, as a loan.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness Nonindicted 3

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused;

1. All matters to be registered (No. 3 and 15 No. 15 of the evidence list);

1. Detailed statement of financial transactions (No. 4 No. 5 of the evidence list) and each loan certificate;

1. Previous records of judgment: Criminal records, inquiry reports and investigation reports (verification of criminal records of a criminal suspect's repeated crime);

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Article 225 (Alteration of Official Document) of the Criminal Act, Articles 229, 225 (Exercise of Modified Official Document) of the Criminal Act, Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act (Fraud point and Selection of Imprisonment)

1. Aggravation for repeated crimes;

Article 35 of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act

Judgment on the Defense Counsel's argument

1. The assertion that a copy has been reproduced;

A. Defense Counsel's assertion

The Defendant, while keeping a copy of the original copy of the judgment, copied the copy, which is an official document, does not constitute an official document. Therefore, the Defendant’s alteration of the copy does not constitute an offense of altering an official document, and the use of the copy does not constitute an offense of uttering of an altered official document.

B. Determination

Pursuant to Article 237-2 of the Criminal Act, a copy of a document reproduced using an electronic reproduction apparatus, facsimile or other similar apparatus has the same meaning as the original document also constitutes a document which is the object of the crime of forging documents and the crime of uttering. The reproduction of a copy of the authentic document by means of an electronic reproduction apparatus and making it entirely different from the contents of the copy by partially manipulating it constitutes an act of forging documents (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Do2855 delivered on September 5, 200, etc.).

As alleged by the defense counsel, even if the defendant altered or exercised the act by using a copy of the certified copy of the judgment, there is no obstacle to the establishment of the crime of altering the official document and uttering of the altered official document. Therefore, the defense counsel's assertion is rejected.

2. The assertion that there is no withdrawal of probative value;

A. Defense Counsel's assertion

It can be easily confirmed the date of issuance of the general humanitarian copy, and the issuance date of the copy cannot be deemed as a new probative value in the copy of the register, and the defendant's act does not constitute a crime of altering a public document or uttering of an altered public document.

B. Determination

Since the deletion of the date of issuance of a certified copy of the register is to prove that the current status of the certified copy of the register is identical, it is reasonable to deem that a new probative value has been forged even with the deletion of the date of issuance. Whether the other party can readily confirm the alteration is merely a reason to determine whether the other party is liable to the victim in determining the punishment for fraud. This part of the assertion is rejected.

Reasons for sentencing

1. Scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria;

(a) First offense (official document);

[Scope of Recommendation] Type 1 (Non-Business, Non-Organizational, Non-Business, Non-Organizational, etc.) of Official Documents, etc.

【Special Convicted Person】

(b) Second crime;

[Extent of Recommendation] Class 1 (less than KRW 100 million) and the area of aggravation (one year to two years)

[Special Person] Where the Criminal Code is very poor;

* The scope of final sentence due to the aggravation of multiple offenses: one year to three years.

2. Determination of sentence (one year and six months of imprisonment);

•Disadvantageous circumstances: active alteration of official documents and the acquisition of money by force is not sufficient to commit a crime. Despite a number of criminal records including the same criminal records, recidivism was made during the period of repeated crime.

•The extent of alteration is limited to the date of issuance. The amount of fraud is not very large.

• Other punishment as ordered shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the records of this case, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, occupation, family relationship, motive and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc. and various sentencing conditions as shown in the trial process.

Judges Godae-man

1) To the extent that it does not disadvantage the Defendant’s exercise of the Defendant’s right to defense, part of the facts charged was revised without the amendment process.