Where a certificate of cash custody prepared to secure a deposit obligation is presented as a documentary evidence from the court to indirectly prove that a loan for cash consumption was made, the nature of the unlawful uttering of private documents (negative)

In the crime of unlawful uttering of private documents, the term "illegal uttering" means that a person who is not authorized to use private documents pretends to use them in the name of the document, but uses the document for the purpose of directly certifying facts other than the original purpose of the document. Thus, a cash custody certificate prepared to secure a deposit obligation and presented a document by a court in order to indirectly support the existence of a loan for consumption of money, rather than to prove that there was a legal act as stated therein, it cannot be viewed as an unlawful uttering of private documents.

Article 236 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 77Do2645 Decided February 14, 1978 (Gong236, 142, No. 581, 10649 of the International Criminal Code)

Defendant

Prosecutor and Defendant

Busan District Court (83 High Court Decision 1899)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 100,000.

When the above fine is not paid, the defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for a period calculated by converting the amount of KRW 2,000 into one day.

The provisional payment of the amount equivalent to the above fine shall be ordered.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, not guilty of unlawful uttering of private documents and attempted fraud

The gist of the prosecutor's grounds for appeal is as follows: First, with respect to unlawful uttering of private documents and attempted fraud, the defendant prepared that Nonindicted 1 would be responsible for the payment of the aforementioned money while receiving the money from Nonindicted 2, and that the cash custody certificate issued to him was delivered to him by Nonindicted 1 while borrowing money from the defendant, and the defendant was presented as a documentary evidence to directly prove the fact of lending the money to Nonindicted 1, unlike the original purpose of the above cash custody certificate, and as there was no possibility of being paid the money by the borrower from Nonindicted 3, his parents, to receive the loan from him, the defendant could not be viewed as an unlawful use of private documents; second, the court below's decision that found the defendant guilty as to the above portion of the crime of embezzlement by deceiving Nonindicted 1 and 4 to receive the money from him; second, the court below's decision that there was no error in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence by misapprehending the legal principles as to the defendant's unlawful use of private documents; second, the defendant's act of presenting the above cash custody certificate to him; second, there was no error in the judgment.

First of all, prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal above, the prosecutor examined ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal, and the prosecutor changed Paragraph (1) of the facts charged to larceny from the crime of embezzlement to the crime of larceny. In addition, since the party member applied for changes in the indictment and permitted the changes in the indictment, the judgment of the court below, based on the previous indictment, cannot be maintained as it was the result of the judgment on the facts that have not been prosecuted, and the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Around 12:00 on October 20, 1979, the Defendant was under trial due to Non-Indicted 3’s failure to receive the money borrowed from the Defendant’s house located in Busan Shipping Daegu (detailed address omitted) to do so, and the Defendant took part in the 1,250,000 foot contract which Non-Indicted 1 was the father of the female, and received the said money as a security for the future payment on June 15 of that year by Non-Indicted 2’s winning the contract on the 1,250,000 foot contract which was drawn up and delivered to Non-Indicted 2 at the request of Non-Indicted 1,250,000 foot cash custody certificate of Non-Indicted 1,250, which was recovered from Non-Indicted 2 on the part of Non-Indicted 1 and then received the said cash custody certificate from Non-Indicted 3.

The facts of the judgment

1. The lower court’s statement that corresponds to the Defendant’s partial statement in the second protocol of trial.

1. Statement corresponding to Non-Indicted 1’s statement in the second protocol of the trial of the political party

1. Each statement consistent with the witness 1, 3, and 4 in the protocol of the trial prior to the renewal of the original judgment

1. Each protocol of examination of the accused prepared by the public prosecutor, which corresponds to the same;

1. In full view of the written statement of Nonindicted 1, 2, 3, and 4 regarding the preparation of administrative affairs by prosecutors and judicial police officers, there is sufficient proof in light of the corresponding written statement.

The so-called the judgment of the defendant falls under Article 329 of the Criminal Act, and the defendant shall be punished by a fine of 100,000 won within the extent increased under Article 4(1) of the Act on Temporary Measures such as Fines, etc., and if the above fine is not paid, the defendant shall be confined in the old house for the period of converting the amount of 2,000 won into one day under Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act, and the provisional payment of the amount equivalent to the above fine shall be ordered under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

이 사건 공소사실중 사문서부정행사 및 사기미수의 점에 관한 공소사실의 요지는 피고인은 1982. 10월 일자미상경 부산지방법원에서 공소외 1 및 그의 처인 공소외 4가 딸인 공소외 3을 통하여 피고인으로부터 돈을 차용하거나, 공소외 3의 피고인으로부터의 금전차용행위에 대한 연대보증을 한 사실이 없음에도 마치 있는 것처럼 위 3인을 공동피고로 하여 금 3,200,000원을 연대하여 지급하라는 취지의 솟장을 제출하고, 그 증거서류로서 1982. 12. 3. 부산지방법원 제6호 법정에서 공소외 1이 계주인 공소외 2에게 작성 교부해 준 위 현금보관증을 제시함으로써 그 문서의 작성명의인도 아니면서 그 작성목적 이외에 직접적으로 공소외 1에 대한 금전대여행위를 증명하기 위하여 위 현금보관증을 부정행사하고, 그 정을 모르는 법원을 기망하여 위 돈을 편취하려 하였으나 목적을 이루지 못하고 미수에 그친 것이다라고 함에 있으므로 살피건대, 기록에 의하면(특히 현금보관증 사본, 소장부본, 청구취지 및 원인변경 신청서사본, 판결정본의 사본의 각 기재), 피고인은 1982. 11. 4. 공소외 1, 4 및 공소외 3을 상대로 제기한 부산지방법원 82가합 (번호 생략) 대여금청구의 소에서 “피고인이 공소외 1에게 그의 처인 공소외 4 또는 그의 출가한 딸인 공소외 3을 통하여 그들의 연대보증 아래 1980. 5. 26. 금 1,500,000원을 대여한 것을 비롯하여 1981. 1. 22.까지의 사이에 8회에 걸쳐 합계금 3,200,000원을 이자는 월 3푼 5리로 정하여 대여하였다”고 주장하였다가, 그후 청구원인을 “피고인은 공소외 1이 1980. 5. 20.경 피고인의 집에 찾아와 피고인에게 금 3,000,000원의 차용을 요구하기에 같은달 25일경 금 1,500,000원을 대여하겠다고 승낙한 후 같은달 26. 공소외 3을 통하여 금 1,000,000원을 대여하였고, 그후 공소외 3의 말(그의 아버지인 공소외 1의 부탁이라고 함)에 따라 1980. 7. 3.부터 1982. 1 22.까지의 사이에 8회 걸쳐 공소외 3에게 합계 금 1,700,000원을 이자는 월 3푼 5리, 변제기는 피고인의 요구시로 정하여 대여하였는 바, 1981. 6월경 공소외 3이 피고인의 집을 나가 행방을 감추자 같은해 6월말경 공소외 4가 피고인을 찾아와 위 차용금중 금 1,700,000원은 어머니인 공소외 4가 청산해 주고 나머지 금 1,500,000원은 아버지인 공소외 1이 청산해 주겠다고 하였다”로 변경하면서, 청구취지도 “피고인에게 공소외 1은 돈 1,500,000원, 공소외 3, 4는 연대하여 돈 1,700,000원 및 위 각 돈에 대한 소장송달 익일부터 완제일까지 연 4할의 비율에 의한 돈을 지급하라”로 변경하고, 증거서류로 현금보관증 사본(갑 제1호증)등을 첨부하여 제출하였다가 그후 1982. 12. 3. 변론기일에서 그 원본을 갑 제1호증으로 제시한 사실, 위 현금보관증은 “현금보관증 : 일금 1,250,000원정 : 계금 완료시까지 지불치 못할 시에는 법적처리에도 무방함 : 단 매월 13일 계금일은 지불 약속함 : 1979. 6. 15. : 부산시 동구 (이하 생략) : 공소외 1 : 계주 귀하”라고 기재되어 있고 공소외 1의 성명 오른편에 그의 인장이 날인되어 있는 사실, 위 민사소송의 결과는 피고인이 1980. 12. 30. 공소외 3에게 금 1,500,000원을 대여한 사실만이 인정되어 동인에 대하여는 원고(피고인)승소의, 공소외 1, 4에 대하여는 그들에 대한 원고의 주장사실을 인정할 증거가 미흡하다는 이유로 청구기각의 각 판결이 선고된 사실을 인정할 수 있고, 위 인정을 뒤집을 증거없다.

Therefore, with respect to the unlawful uttering of private documents, the unlawful uttering of private document means that a person who is not authorized to use or use the private document pretended to use it in the name of the document and used it for the purpose of directly proving facts other than the original purpose even though he/she is authorized to use or use it. It is based on the facts acknowledged earlier, and even if the defendant presented the original copy of the document as a documentary evidence (Evidence A) at the date of pleading, in light of the contents of the above document and the cause of the claim, it is not presented to prove that there was a legal act as stated in the cash custody certificate, but it is not a material to prove the fact that the defendant possessed the above cash custody certificate in the name of the non-indicted 1, that is, the original purpose of the document custody is to guarantee the deposit of the non-indicted 1's capital's capital, so it is necessary to recover or discard it after fulfilling the original mission if it is normal, and it is not possible to support the defendant's direct act of using the document as reference to the above facts that he/she directly borrowed or presented it as a document (the above facts that the defendant did not directly.

The following facts are revealed as to attempted fraud. The defendant lending money to the non-indicted 3 as mentioned above, and taking the non-indicted 1 and the non-indicted 4, his parents, as co-defendants, as co-defendants, are responsible for his relationship with the non-indicted 3 and his behavior and behavior against the defendant before and after the above lending of money, and the remaining of the non-indicted 3 as co-defendants. Under these circumstances, the defendant's action against the non-indicted 1 and 4 against the non-indicted 1 and 4 is judged to be legally responsible for the defendant's non-legal expert, and the court's decision is judged to be responsible for them, and in this sense, the defendant's action against them is recognized to have been brought by the court as co-defendants. Thus, it cannot be viewed that the defendant deceivings the defendant to take over the property of the non-indicted 1 and 4 or he has a criminal intent to acquire property benefits.

Thus, the above facts charged constitute a case where there is no proof of facts constituting the crime, and thus, the judgment of innocence shall be rendered pursuant to the latter part of Article 325

It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Ansan-sung (Presiding Judge)