If a notary public makes an authentication for a deed signed by a private person, the nature of the crime of false entry in the original notarial deed prescribed in Article 228 (1) of the Criminal Act

A notary public’s authentication on a deed signed by a private person is merely intended to have the parties sign or affix a seal on the deed signed by a private person in front of a notary public, or to have the parties concerned or their agents certify the signature or seal on the deed signed by a private person and then to enhance the probative value of the formation of the deed as it is written in the deed. As such, a notary public authentication on the deed signed by a private person does not constitute a crime of false entry in the original deed as prescribed in Article 228(1) of the Criminal

Defendant

Attorney Ha Jong-sung

Daegu District Court Decision 71No57 delivered on December 26, 1974

The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division.

Judgment on the Second Ground of Appeal by the Attorney

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, under Article 2 (A) of the same judgment, the defendant's possession of the standing timber upon obtaining the seals of Kim Dong-dong for the reasons as stated in its judgment, forged five copies of a contract under the name of the above Kim Dong-dong Kim, purchased from the above Kim Dong-dong Kim, and submitted the contract as if the defendant was a document duly formed at the Daegu notary joint office of a Daegu notary public, thereby making a false report on the contract and allowing such public official who is unaware of the above points to make a false report on the contract and enter the false facts in the original copy of the authentic deed.

However, if the court below examines the evidence at the time of trial based on the records, it is clear that the so-called notary public who submitted a contract of sale and purchase of standing timber in the name of Kim Dong-dong, which was accepted and authenticated in 150, 151, 153, 148, and 149 as the original copy of the notarial deed, to a notary public, and issued from the notary public an authentication to the effect that "the seller and the purchaser confirm that each party's name and seal are affixed," and the authentication of the notarial deed is a notarial deed authenticated by the so-called notary public, and it is obvious that such authentication of the notarial deed is a notarial deed signed and sealed by the notary public in front of the notary public, or was made by the principal or his agent to affix a signature or seal on the notarial deed, and it is merely nothing more than intended to have the probative value of the establishment of the notarial deed, and it is not reasonable to reverse the judgment of the court below on the ground that there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the notarial deeds on the original deed.

Therefore, the original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)