Punishment of Crimes if only the photograph of a driver's license is replaced and appended;

The act of removing a photograph of another person's driver's license and attaching another photograph for the purpose of uttering is a crime of forging a public document.

Article 225 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 4290Ma52 delivered on April 12, 1957 (Supreme Court Decision 4540 delivered on April 12, 1957, Supreme Court Decision 225(2)1297 of the Criminal Act)

Defendant

Defendant

Seoul Criminal Court of the first instance (75 Gohap403)

We reverse the original judgment.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

The sixty days of detention days prior to the pronouncement of the judgment below shall be included in the above sentence.

The seized motor vehicle heat (Evidence No. 3) shall be confiscated.

A counterfeited photograph of one driver's license (No. 2) shall be discarded.

The first point of the grounds for appeal of the defendant's defense counsel is that the defendant's attorney's first point of the appeal is based on the fact that the defendant's driver's license in the name of another person is established, regardless of the fact that the defendant's photograph is attached to the driver's license in the name of another person, the crime of forging public documents is not constituted, but the court below's judgment was punished as a crime of forging public documents, which has affected the judgment, and the second point of the grounds for appeal and the summary of the defendant's appeal are too unreasonable.

Therefore, it is reasonable to see that the act of removing a health belt and a false driver's license photograph and attaching another photograph is the forgery of a document. Therefore, the court below is just in holding that the so-called defendant constitutes a crime of forgery of a document under the above opinion and there is no illegality in law. Thus, the above argument cannot be accepted.

However, according to the court below's decision on November 30, 195, the defendant was a child under Article 2 of the Juvenile Act at the time of a sentence of the court below as a child on November 30, 1955, but it is clear that the defendant had already attained majority. Thus, the court below's decision on the non-guilty sentence by applying Article 54 of the same Act to the defendant cannot be maintained as it is. Therefore, without any need to determine the argument on the above unfair sentencing, the court below's decision is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act without regard to the above argument on unfair sentencing.

The summary of the facts charged and the evidence admitted by a party member are stated in each corresponding column of the original judgment, so it is identical to that of the original judgment, thereby citing it as is in accordance with Article 369 of the same Act.

Article 225 of the Criminal Act provides that Article 329, Article 225 of the Criminal Act provides that Article 329, Article 225 of the same Act provides that Article 329 of the same Act shall apply to the so-called theft of Article 25, Article 38 of the Road Traffic Act, and Article 329 of the same Act provides that a person without a license shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for each of the crimes of larceny and Road Traffic Act, and Article 38 of the same Act provides that the defendant shall be punished by repeated crimes, and Article 35 of the Criminal Act provides that a person shall be punished by repeated crimes pursuant to the former part of Article 37 of the same Act; Article 38 (1) 2 and Article 50 of the same Act provides that a part of the above offenses constitutes concurrent crimes of Article 37 of the same Act; Article 38 of the same Act provides that a person shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a limited term of imprisonment with prison labor for the most severe punishment for the crime of uttering of a motor vehicle; Article 17 of the same Act provides that person shall apply the same Act.

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

Judges Limited Jin-jin (Presiding Judge)