Whether the forged official document may be the object of the crime of unlawful uttering of the official document

The certificate of removal of government-owned products is a forged public document that had already been forged before the defendant exercises, so it cannot be the object of the unlawful uttering of public document.

Article 230 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Chuncheon District Court (70Da559) in the first instance trial

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

For the ancillary facts charged added at the trial, not guilty

The gist of the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor is as follows: first, the certificate of removal of national forest products as the issue in this case is a public document prepared by a public official within his authority, and only the period of removal is altered and forged, and all other contents such as the holder of a title shall be the public document which is the object of the crime of unlawful uttering of public documents. Thus, the court below found the defendant not guilty of the charges of unlawful uttering of public documents on the ground that the certificate of removal of national forest products in this case is a forged public document, and thus it cannot be the object of the crime of unlawful uttering of public documents. Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the object of the crime of unlawful uttering of public documents, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Second, considering the circumstances such as the fact that the defendant's planned deception of the public official concerned and attempted to remove private forest products without permission, it is unfair that the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

Therefore, this paper examines the following facts: (a) the judgment of the court below that the certificate of removal of government-owned forest products was unlawfully exercised by the defendant is just and it cannot be the object of the unlawful uttering of government-owned forest products since it was a forged public document, which had already been used by the defendant prior to the exercise of the defendant; and (b) the judgment of the court below is not erroneous as pointed out in the reasoning of the judgment below; and (c) second, examining in detail the circumstances as to whether there are various conditions of the punishment lawfully investigated by the court below, such as the motive, means, result, degree of damage, Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, circumstances after the crime, etc., even if considering the circumstances asserted by the public prosecutor, the judgment of the court below against the defendant

Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

The facts charged and the applicable provisions of the indictment were added to the facts charged as stated in the indictment with the permission of the party members at the trial of the public prosecutor. On February 14, 1970, the summary of the aforementioned conjunctive facts charged was examined. The defendant, at the upper Dong-ri, Dong-ri, Gangwon-do, the co-indicted 1 received from the co-indicted 1 in the judgment of the court below, knowing that the certificate of removal of the state-owned forest products in possession was an official document forged by the non-indicted 1, and presented it to the non-indicted 2 to the non-indicted 2. The defendant presented the certificate of removal of the above state-owned forest products to the non-indicted 2 at the time when the defendant presented the certificate of removal of the above state-owned forest products to the non-indicted 2, who was consistent with the fact that it was known that it was a forged public document, it is difficult for the prosecutor and the judicial police officer to believe the contents of each written statement and the written statement of the non-indicted 2's disposal of affairs. Accordingly, there is no evidence to acknowledge the above ancillary facts charged.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Kim Yong-chul (Presiding Justice) Kim Yong-woon only