In a case where a person who is not a public official submits a false document to the public office and receives a certificate such as the contents of the document from a public official who is unaware of the fact, whether the crime of forging an official document is established (negative)

If a public official who has the authority to prepare a document recognizes the contents of the document and puts his/her signature and seal on it with the intention to prepare it, even if the signature and seal were to be caused by a mistake in another person's deception, and even if the contents of the document were not known to be contrary to the truth, the formation of the document is authentic, and it cannot be said that there was any fact that the document has been copied, so if a person who is not a public official submits a false document to the public official and obtains a certificate such as the contents of the document from the public official who knows that the contents are false, it cannot be regarded as an indirect crime of forging a public document.

Articles 34 and 225 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court en banc Decision 4292Do645 Decided December 14, 1961 (No. 9, 193) Supreme Court Decision 70Do1044 Decided July 28, 1970 (No. 18-2, 65)

Defendant 1 and one other

Prosecutor

Daejeon High Court Decision 9No666 delivered on January 28, 2000

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

If a public official who has the authority to prepare a document recognizes the contents of the document and puts his/her signature and seal on it with the intention to prepare it, even if the signature and seal were to be caused by a mistake in another person's deception, and even if the contents of the document were not known to be contrary to the truth, the formation of the document is authentic, and it cannot be said that there was any fact that he/she copied the statement of the document (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 70Do1044, Jul. 28, 1970). Thus, if a person who is not a public official submits a false supporting document to the public office to obtain a certificate, such as the contents of the supporting document, from the public official who is unaware of the falsity, it cannot be regarded as an indirect

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, Defendant 1 and 2 were the representative director of each non-indicted corporation 1 and non-indicted 2 corporation. On June 25, 198, each of the above companies jointly bid to extend access roads to the research complex ordered by the Integrated Construction Headquarters at the first time, and were at the risk of evading the final successful bid due to lack of construction work records required by the above construction headquarters, the above construction work certificate issued by the government office is forged and submitted to the above construction headquarters. On June 30, 1998, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to each of the above facts that the non-indicted 2 corporation ordered the above construction work under the premise that the public official was not aware of the fact that the public official was not guilty, and the public official was not aware of the fact that the public official's false construction work records were forged and falsified, and the public official's signature and seal of each of the above construction work records was submitted to the public official under the jurisdiction of the head of the above government office.

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

Justices Lee Han-gu (Presiding Justice)