[1] The meaning of "documents proving facts material to transaction" in the crime of forging private documents and uttering thereof, and the standard for determining whether such document constitutes such "documents"

[2] The case holding that a letter of recommendation and a statement of appeal prepared by stealing another person's name constitutes a document proving an important fact

[3] The case holding that the crime of forging private documents and the crime of defamation is established, where a member of the ○○ Association prepared an appeal against the head of the Association Education Institute by stealing another person's name and then served it by mail to the members of the Association, and that the crime of forging private documents and defamation is a substantive competition relation

[1] Articles 231 and 234 of the Criminal Act / [2] Article 231 of the Criminal Act / [3] Articles 37, 231, and 307 of the Criminal Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 99Do4819 delivered on February 11, 2000 (Gong2000Sang, 753) Supreme Court Decision 2008Do7018 Delivered on November 27, 2008

Defendant

Defendant

Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2008No15 decided September 3, 2008

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Private document forgery, private document which is the object of the crime of uttering refers to the document or drawing of another person with respect to the right, obligation, or certification of fact, and the document pertaining to the right and obligation refers to a document in which matters concerning the creation, modification, or extinction of right and obligation are entered, and a document pertaining to certification of fact refers to a document other than a document pertaining to the right and obligation, which proves an important fact in the transaction (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5533, Dec. 10, 2002).

In addition, a document proving an important fact in the transaction may include not only the document, the primary purpose of which is to prove the process before and after the occurrence, existence, modification, or extinction of the legal relationship, but also the document containing an expression of intent that may have an effect only indirectly on the change of the right and obligation, which is directly related to the direct legal relationship. Whether it falls under this, not only the title of the document, but also the content of the document, but also the overall situation in which the document was prepared, the matters indicated in the document, and the relationship with the other party scheduled to exercise.

According to the evidence duly examined by the lower court and the lower court, the Defendant prepared a letter to the effect that, by stealing the name of Nonindicted 1, the Defendant used the name of Nonindicted 2 to “if Nonindicted 2, who was elected to the president of the Korea ○○ Venture Association, demands him to take appropriate personnel measures according to his election result, and fails to comply with it, he will act against the president,” and exercised it to Nonindicted 2, and that Nonindicted 3, who was appointed to the director of the Education Center as Nonindicted 3, by stating the specific mistakes of Nonindicted 3, is wrong, the issue of appointment of the director of the Education Center is required to be reviewed through a public opinion, and the method of convening an extraordinary general meeting, personnel hearing, voting by members, and public offering, etc. is presented, and if such a proposal is silent and made, it will act as a ... In the event of such a motion, it is possible to act as a demonstration and conclusion with the Association’s command and the public press, and furthermore, it is sufficiently declared that the member and the Association will end its member signature.

In light of the above legal principles, the content of each of the above documents is not just a mere political relief or appeal, but a statement of intent to indicate specific requirements and, if not implemented, hold a legal and administrative responsibility. It constitutes a document proving an important fact, and it constitutes a document proving an important fact.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to documents of fact-finding, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the summary of the charge of aiding and abetting a private document around July 2004, the Defendant prepared an appeal against Nonindicted 3 under the title, “I would have no person to do so,” without authority, for the purpose of uttering at the end of July 25, 2004, by means of the computer network work without authority, and then, forged Nonindicted 1’s appeal, which is a private document regarding the certification of facts, by arbitrarily entering the name of Nonindicted 1 on the Defendant’s name at the end of the document, and according to the records, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of three million won for defamation at the Seoul Southern District Court on January 25, 2006, which became final and conclusive on August 25, 2006, and the criminal facts of the final judgment that the Defendant sent the same document as the above appeal to ○○ 1,700 members of the Association, thereby openly pointing out that the Defendant’s reputation was damaged by openly pointing out the false facts.

The court below reversed the judgment of the court of first instance which acquitted the part of the facts charged on the premise that both crimes are concurrent crimes on the ground that the crime of defamation and the crime of forging private document around the end of July 2004 should be deemed concurrent crimes, and found the defendant guilty of the above facts charged. The judgment of the court below is just and it did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the number of crimes as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

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

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)