If a debtor prepares a certificate of a seal imprint and a certificate of a personal seal impression issued by a person who intends to be a joint and several surety, the crime of forging private documents is committed (negative)

The reason why the seal imprint certificate and the seal imprint certificate used to prepare a document necessary for becoming a guarantor is that the debtor has allowed the debtor to prepare a document that contains the content that the debtor will bear the debt to the creditor in addition to the document, so the debtor prepared such document, although the document is not a guarantee, and even if the document is not a certificate of borrowing without the statement that the guarantor is a guarantor, the document is prepared on the basis of legitimate authority.

Article 231 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Jeonju District Court Decision 82No283 delivered on August 25, 1982

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the prosecutor's grounds of appeal.

The court below found the defendant not guilty on the ground that the court below found the defendant not guilty on the ground that it did not state a document containing the content that he would bear the same amount of debt to the other party with the seal imprint certificate and the certificate of the personal seal imprint certificate, which is used to prepare documents necessary therefor as a guarantor for the obligation of the other party, since the court below allowed the other party to prepare a document containing the content that he would bear the same amount of debt to the other party with the other party by using the seal imprint certificate and the certificate of the personal seal imprint certificate. Thus, if a document containing such content was prepared, the document should be prepared on the basis of legitimate authority, and even if the document did not state the statement as a guarantee certificate, and even if the document was not mentioned as a guarantor, it did not state the statement as a guarantee certificate, such fact as at the time of the original judgment is lawfully recognized, and if this fact is factually acknowledged, the court below's decision that the defendant cannot take the punishment of the article on private documents, such as the theory

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

Justices Shin Jong-young (Presiding Justice)