Whether it constitutes fraud if a court deceivings a court and appoints an absentee property administrator;

Since it cannot be deemed that only by deceiving the court and appointing the administrator of an absentee as a custodian of an absentee has obtained any property right or property interest, such act cannot be deemed as a fraud.

The crime of uttering of a falsified private document shall be established when the relevant private document itself is used, and it shall not be established when only a copy of the forged private document is used.

Defendant Round et al., Defendant Round

Prosecutor

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 70No156 delivered on February 23, 1973

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the prosecutor's grounds of appeal.

If the court appoints an absentee property administrator, the administrator of the absentee's property is entitled to a certain authority for the management of the absentee's property. The essence of the right is to make the administrator possible to dispose of the property in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Act with the interest of the absentee. It does not include giving profits to the administrator. Even if the court pays a reasonable amount of remuneration to the administrator's property, it is nothing more than incidental to the right to manage the property, but it is nothing more than that which can be paid by the court's decision as to the efforts provided by the administrator in the management of the property, and it cannot be said that the administrator gains profits from the right to manage the property for his own interest, and it cannot be deemed that the administrator gains profits from the property by managing the property for his own interest, and it cannot be deemed that the administrator has the right to manage the property or property by deceiving the administrator of the absentee's property without the right to manage the property, and it cannot be deemed that the defendant has the right to manage the property or property by deceiving the administrator of the property as prescribed in the Civil Act.

On the premise of the same judgment, the original judgment that held that the part concerning fraud among the facts charged against the defendant in the indictment cannot be established is just, and there is no error by misapprehending the legal principles on fraud or the status of an absentee administrator appointed by the court. In addition, the crime of uttering of the above investigation document is established when the use of the forged private document itself, and it is not established when the use of only a copy of the falsified private document, and it is reasonable in the original judgment, and there is no error of incomplete deliberation in the original judgment regarding the exercise of the above investigation document among the facts charged.

All of the arguments are without merit. The appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges under Article 390 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Justices Kim Young-chul (Presiding Justice)