(a) An act of making a public official who may know of the circumstances enter false information in the Do resident's certificate or an act of making a false public document;

(b) Adjudication proceedings made on the non-prosecution of public prosecution;

(a) When a person who is not a public official commits an indirect offense against a false official document, such person shall not be punished except in the case of Article 286 of this Act;

(b) Do residents do not comply with any inspection of the original of a notarial deed or the licence, or any passport;

Articles 227 and 228 of the Criminal Act, Article 264 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant

Gwangju District Court Decision 1961Gong600 delivered on August 31, 1961

the original judgment shall be reversed.

The case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

The defendant's ground of appeal is that the judgment of the court below in the case of investigation based on the authority of the defendant, such as the statement in the annexed appellate brief, forged the application form for issuance of Do residents' certificate in the name of the civil petition and one copy of the reason for new application for Do residents' certificate, and subsequently, the defendant's act constitutes Article 227 of the Criminal Act, recognizing that the defendant's act constitutes the defendant's act, by allowing an employee of the inspection team who is not aware of the circumstances, to falsely prepare one copy of Do residents' certificate in the name of Do governor in the name of the Do governor

However, the Criminal Act only punishs the so-called intangible public document with respect to the so-called intangible crime and does not recognize the forgery of a general document, and also regards the intangible of a public document as well as the intangible of a public document, in addition to Article 227 of the Criminal Act, the penal provision of Article 228 of the Criminal Act shall be imposed only when a false report is made to a public official in addition to Article 227 of the Criminal Act, and the punishment of Article 227 of the Criminal Act shall also be imposed significantly more severe than the punishment of Article 227 of the Criminal Act. In the event that a person who is not a public official is an indirect offender in the aforesaid Article of a false public document, it is reasonable to interpret it to the effect that he does not punish him except in the case of Article 228 of the Criminal Act. In addition, since the Do resident certificate does not fall under any of the original copy of a notarial deed, inspection of a licence or passport, the defendant's act in the judgment of the court does not affect the application of the Act.

In addition, the original judgment also applied Article 98 (1) and Article 100 of the Criminal Act by recognizing the defendant's acts of counter-espionage and punished. However, according to the indictment, it is not sufficient to recognize that the defendant requested a trial against the acts of counter-espionage in light of his facts charged and the applicable provisions of law, and as long as the trace of viewing the defendant as claiming a trial against the acts of counter-espionage after prosecution is not shown in the records, the original judgment that recognized the acts stipulated in Article 98 (1) and Article 100 of the Criminal Act and decided that the provisions of the Act apply to the defendant shall not be reversed even if it falls under the case where

Therefore, by applying Articles 391 and 397 of the Criminal Procedure Act, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Lee Jin-chul (Presiding Judge)