A. In a case where the appellate court ex officio examines the grounds not included in the grounds for appeal and decides on the first instance judgment, whether it is unlawful unless it separately states the judgment on the grounds for appeal.

(b) Whether the documents, on which the duty to prepare is imposed on the public notice of the Korea Shipping and Port Authority, are those which form the objects of preparation of false official documents;

A. In a case where the appellate court ex officio examines the reasons not included in the grounds for appeal and then reverses the judgment of the first instance and rendering a new judgment, even if there was no separate judgment as to the legitimacy of the grounds for appeal cited by the appellant, it shall be deemed that the appellate court has already judged the legitimacy of the grounds for appeal in its self-determination. Thus, the appellate court did not separately state the judgment on the grounds for appeal of the defendant in its judgment and did not err in

(b)in the crime of preparing false official documents, documents pertaining to the official duties refer to documents prepared by a public official within the official’s authority and authority, and such documents do not necessarily require legal basis, but include documents which are the objects of preparation of false official documents, because they are documents whose duty to be prepared is imposed upon the public notice of the Maritime Affairs and Port Authority and are included in cases where their official authority is prepared by the authority of the official in accordance with internal rules or practices;

A. Article 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 4292Do327 delivered on July 31, 1959, 83Do2378 delivered on December 27, 1983, Supreme Court Decision 76Do3467 delivered on December 13, 1978, Supreme Court Decision 81Do943 delivered on December 8, 1981

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Kim Dong-dong

Jeonju District Court Decision 94No113 delivered on December 6, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In a case where the court below ex officio examines the reasons not included in the grounds for appeal and reverses the judgment of the court of first instance and decides again, even if there was no separate judgment as to the propriety of the grounds for appeal cited by the appellant, it shall be deemed that the propriety of the grounds for appeal in the appellate court's self-determination has already been determined (see Supreme Court Decision 83Do2378, Dec. 27, 1983). Thus, the court below did not provide a separate judgment as to the grounds for appeal by the defendant in its judgment and did not err in the misapprehension of law. The grounds for appeal pointing

2. Upon examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below found the defendant guilty of the crime of this case to be just, and there is no error in the determination of evidence as pointed out in the grounds of appeal, and the defendant did not appear to have had the intention to commit the crime of this case, and the mere mistake of facts cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal in this case that sentenced the same punishment as the court below. The grounds of appeal pointing this out

3. In the crime of preparing false official documents, the term "documents related to official duties" means documents prepared by a public official within his official's authority and authority, and the documents do not necessarily require any legal basis, and are also included in cases where the official authority is prepared by an order, bylaws or custom as the authority of performing his duties (see Supreme Court Decision 81Do943, Dec. 8, 1981). Therefore, in this case, the official documents at issue are imposed with the duty to prepare by the public notice of the Maritime Affairs and Port Authority, and even in the case of documents kept in his custody, are nothing more than the official documents which form the object of preparing false official documents, and thus, the grounds for appeal against this cannot be accepted.

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

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)