Whether the alteration of an official document is established when the use of a certificate of seal impression has been made without authority.

In a case where the part prepared by a public official and the part prepared by an individual are included in one document, if the part prepared by a public official alters the part prepared by the document prepared by the public official, it shall be deemed that the crime of altering the official document is established. The use of a certificate of seal imprint differs depending on the applicant's entries or the purpose of use. Therefore, it shall be deemed that the valid period of the certificate of seal imprint varies depending on whether it is stated or not. Therefore, if it has been written without authority, it constitutes

Article 225 of the Criminal Act; Article 12 of the Certification of Seal Imprint Act; Article 13 of the Enforcement Decree of the Certification of Seal Imprint Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Seoul District Court (84 High Court Decision 535 delivered on July 1, 201)

Supreme Court Decision 85Do1490 Delivered on September 24, 1985

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date of the final judgment.

A copy of a certificate of the personal seal impression seized (certificate No. 1) shall be destroyed.

1. Summary of the prosecutor's grounds for appeal;

The court below found the defendant not guilty on the ground that he did not constitute a crime of altering official document on the ground that he did not constitute an official document, but did not constitute a crime of altering official document, even though he knew that the defendant made the "establishment of provisional registration" as stated in the column for the use of the certificate of the personal seal impression of Non-Indicted 1 and used the "sale" on the upper part.

However, in light of the purpose of making an application for the issuance of a certificate of seal impression the purpose of use is required and the validity period of the certificate is different, the portion for use specified by an individual shall be deemed part of the official document.

2. Determination on the grounds for the above appeal

On the other hand, if a document prepared by a public official or a document prepared by an individual is included in one document, the crime of altering a public document shall be established even if the document is altered by the phrase of the public official's proof. According to Article 12 of the Certification of Seal Imprint Act, Article 13 (2) and (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, a person who intends to obtain a certificate of seal imprint shall submit an application for designating the purpose to the certification agency, and the certification agency shall issue a separate certificate of seal imprint to the certification agency unless there is a ground for refusal under Article 15 of the same Enforcement Decree, and the term of validity of the certificate of seal imprint shall be one month for real estate sale, and three months for other purposes. Thus, the purpose of use of the certificate of seal imprint is that the applicant for a certificate of seal imprint has a change in the term of validity of the certificate of personal seal imprint according to what stated the purpose or that the certificate of seal imprint is issued. Thus, if the purpose of use has been written without authority, it constitutes the crime of altering a public document.

Therefore, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of validity of the certificate of seal imprint under the view that the above indication on the column for use is irrelevant to the above portion of proof.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the prosecutor's appeal is well-grounded, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the main source is to be decided as follows.

On February 4, 1983, the defendant purchased about 16 square meters of an unauthorized house 1 and sold it to the non-indicted 2, the non-indicted 1, the ownership of the non-indicted 1, and the use of his personal seal impression (certificate No. 1) delivered by the non-indicted 1, which was issued by the above non-indicted 1, for the purpose of establishing a provisional registration. When it was impossible to use it for the change of the name of the house house ledger, the defendant thought that the document should be altered, and around August 15, 1983, around 14:00 on August 15, 1983, the above non-indicted 1, which was issued by the head of Dong on February 10, 1983, stated in the column for the use of the certificate of the personal seal impression No. 6, which was written in the column for the purpose of using the certificate of the personal seal impression No. 1, and prepared the certificate of the personal seal impression No. 6, and delivered it to the above non-indicted 2 at the same place.

The above findings of the judgment

1. The statement corresponding thereto in the original judgment and the trial prior to the remanding of the defendant;

1. The statement corresponding to the interrogation protocol of the accused prepared by the public prosecutor;

1. The interrogation protocol of Nonindicted Party 1 and each statement of Nonindicted Party 2 and 3 regarding the preparation of the disposition of judicial police officer's affairs, corresponding to this, are written.

1. A certificate of the personal seal impression seized (No. 1) can be recognized on a comprehensive basis, and such certificate is sufficient.

Article 225 of the Criminal Act as to the alteration of official document in the so-called judgment of the defendant, and Articles 229 and 225 of the same Act as to the above two crimes, since the above crimes are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the same Act, the defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year within the scope of the term of punishment provided for the crime of uttering of the altered official document with heavy criminal situation under Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, and the defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor within the scope of the term of punishment: Provided, That since the defendant has no particular criminal record, and there is a reason to take into account the circumstances, such as where the execution of the above punishment has been postponed for two years from the date when this judgment became final and conclusive, and the alteration of one copy of a certificate of personal seal impression seized (Evidence 1) shall be prohibited from being owned by anyone due to the crime of altering the official document under Article 62 of the same Act, and thus, it shall be discarded under Article 48 (1) 2 and (3) of the same Act.

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

Judges Lee Jong-chul (Presiding Judge)