[1] In the case where a notary public prepares a certificate of a deed signed by a private person, in the absence of the parties having signed or sealed the certificate signed by a private person in the presence of a notary public, or having the parties or their agents confirm that the signature or seal of the certificate signed by a private person was the principal, whether the crime of preparing a false public document is established (affirmative)

[2] The case holding that where an attorney-at-law in charge of notarial services received a document for entrustment of notarial services from an employee of a certified judicial scrivener, and a certified judicial scrivener was present in the notarial affairs office and stated in the certificate as if he had not confirmed that the signature and seal of a deed was the party himself, the crime of preparing false

[1] In preparing a certificate of a deed signed by a private person, if a notary public entrusted with the authentication of a deed signed by a private person does not have the party sign or affix a seal on the deed signed by a private person in front of a notary public, or if the party or his agent did not have made the party concerned or his agent confirm that the signature or affix a seal on the deed signed by a private person in front of a notary public, or if the party concerned or his agent written in a certificate as if he confirmed that the signature or affix a seal on the deed signed by a private person was the principal, the party

[2] The case holding that where an attorney-at-law in charge of notarial services received a document for entrustment of notarial services from an employee of a certified judicial scrivener and the certified judicial scrivener did not have confirmed that the seal of a deed signed by a private person was the party himself/herself, if the agent entrusted notarial services is a certified judicial scrivener and the employee submitted a commission document to the notarial services office and did not confirm that the seal or signature of the deed signed by a certified judicial scrivener was the party himself/herself, even if the practice of the industry is the practice of the industry, such practice of the industry cannot be deemed to be justified, and thus

[1] Article 227 of the Criminal Code, Article 57 (1) of the Notary Public Act / [2] Article 227 of the Criminal Code, Article 57 (1) of the Notary Public Act

Defendant

Defendant

Law Firm Sejong, Attorneys Lee Chang-tae et al.

Suwon District Court Decision 2006No517 decided May 22, 2006

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In light of Article 57 (1) of the Notary Public Act, the authentication of a deed signed by a private person shall be made by stating the fact in the deed after having the party concerned sign or affix a seal on the deed signed by a private person or his agent in front of a notary public, or having the party concerned or his agent confirm the signature or affix a seal on the deed signed by a private person in front of a notary public, in preparing a certificate signed by a private person signed by a private person before a notary public, the notary public who is entrusted with the authentication of a deed signed by a private person shall neither sign or affix a seal on the deed signed by a private person nor have the party concerned or his agent confirm the fact that the signature or affix a seal on the deed signed by a private person is himself, unless the party concerned or his agent has made a signature or affix a seal on the deed signed by a private person in front of a notary public, or if the party concerned or his agent

The court below found the defendant, an attorney-at-law in charge of notarial services, in preparing a certificate of investment deed which is a deed signed by a private person, that he received a commission document from an employee of the non-indicted on the part of the non-indicted on the written application for notarial services and did not confirm that the above non-indicted was the party himself, but the above non-indicted was present in the notarial services office and confirmed that the seal of the above investment certificate was the party himself. As to the facts of this case, the defendant was aware of the preparation of a false public document at the time of preparation of the above certificate, and even if the attorney-at-law in charge of notarial services submitted a commission document to the notarial services office and submitted the document to the notarial services office and did not confirm that the seal or signature of the deed signed by the certified judicial scrivener himself was the party himself, the court below found the defendant guilty on the grounds that there is no justifiable reason to believe that his act was not a crime, in light of the above legal principles and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, contrary to

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

Justices Kim Hwang-sik (Presiding Justice)