Whether the crime of uttering of forged securities is established even if a forged check is delivered.

The defendant notified and delivered to the defendant "A" two copies of a forged check at the time of delivery, and the defendant "A" also can be recognized as having received it with the knowledge that it is a forged check. In this case, it does not constitute the crime of uttering of forged securities because it is not a true document (securities).

Article 217 of the Criminal Act

Defendant 1 and one other

Prosecutor and Defendant

Jeonju District Court (69Da290) in the first instance trial

We reverse the original judgment.

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to eight months and by a fine of up to 30,00 won, and by imprisonment with prison labor for up to ten months.

When Defendant 1 does not pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting 200 won into one day.

To order Defendant 1 to pay the amount of the above fine.

From among detention days before the sentence of the lower judgment, 115 days for Defendant 1, and 95 days for Defendant 2 shall be included in the said imprisonment, respectively.

However, with respect to Defendant 1, the execution of the above imprisonment shall be suspended for two years from the date the judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The evidence of seizure 1 and 2 (each forged check) shall be confiscated from the accused, etc.

Of the facts charged against Defendant 1, each of the facts charged against Defendant 2 as referred to in Article 4-(b) and (c) shall be acquitted.

According to the records of this case ex officio, it is obvious that judges who participated in the case hearing by the court of original judgment was involved in the case trial according to the original judgment, although they were judges' grandchildren, it is obvious that they did not participate in the case trial according to the original judgment, which is violation of the law falling under Article 361-5 subparagraph 8 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Therefore, in accordance with Article 364 (2) and (6) of the same Act, the original judgment is reversed, and the judgment is judged again.

(1) Criminal facts and evidence

The criminal facts and evidence relations recognized by a member are identical to the judgment on conviction of the defendant among the reasons in the original judgment, and thus, they are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

(2) Applicable provisions;

Defendant 1’s judgment (Counterfeit of two checks) constitutes Article 5 of the Control of Illegal Check Control Act. Since this constitutes concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, it shall be sentenced to punishment within the scope of aggravated punishment for the crime of forging check at a face value of 1,50,000 won under Articles 38(1)2 and 50 of the same Act. However, there are reasons to be considered in light of the motive of the crime and circumstances after the crime, etc., under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act, the above defendant shall be sentenced to imprisonment for up to 8 months and 30,000 won, and since it constitutes an aggravated punishment under Articles 69(2) and 70 of the same Act, the above punishment shall be sentenced to imprisonment for up to 1 million won for a period of up to 20 days converted from the sentence of imprisonment for the crime under Article 38(1)2 of the same Act, Article 69 of the Control of Illegal Check Control Act, proviso to Article 69(1) of the Criminal Act, etc.

(3) The portion not guilty

Of the facts charged, the fact that Defendant 1 delivered two copies of the forged check (amounted to KRW 100,00 and KRW 150,000) as indicated in the judgment of Defendant 1 to Defendant 2 on two occasions may be acknowledged based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor. However, in full view of Defendant 1’s statement in the courtroom, each protocol of examination of suspect against Defendant 1 prepared by the public prosecutor and judicial police officer, and the statement in the protocol of examination of suspect as to Nonindicted 2 in the protocol of examination of the prosecutor’s suspect as to Defendant 1, Defendant 1 notified and delivered two copies of the forged check as indicated in the judgment at the time of delivery to Defendant 2, and the above Defendant 2 was also delivered with the above fact even though it did not use it as a genuine document (securities). In this case, there is no dissenting opinion, but it does not constitute the crime of uttering of forged securities (in this case, it is established, and even if a person who has forged securities is aware that it is a forged securities, it should also be punished in the court (Article).

Therefore, the defendant 1 is acquitted as to the exercise of forged securities.

Next, Defendant 2, as stated in the judgment of the court below (2-2), by deceiving Nonindicted 3 as well as 2,300 won of the deceased noble person who is owned by the same person (167,500 won of the down payment) and being urged to pay the same price (157,500 won of the remainder, excluding 167,500 won of the down payment already paid) and then being notified of the payment of the performance, the person who is notified of the payment of 5,000 won of the next day and was notified of the payment of 152,50 won of the remainder (152,500 won of the payment, 500 won of the down payment after the next day) received the payment of the performance (5 days of the performance) (4-B and (c) of the performance can be recognized as being followed by evidence of the prosecutor's submission, but once the act of deception was established, it cannot be said that there was a new intention to refuse to obtain the payment of the subsequent performance of the performance of the obligation after the performance of the obligation.

Therefore, the facts charged against Defendant 2 are also acquitted with respect to each fraud under Article 4-2 (b) and (c) of the facts charged.

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

Judges Kim Dong-chul (Presiding Judge)